If you can’t afford children…

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, April 10th, 2015 - 186 comments
Categories: child welfare, families, human rights, john key - Tags: , ,

Doing the rounds yesterday:

affording-children-key

186 comments on “If you can’t afford children… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Mr Nobody 1
    10 April 2015 at 8:19 am

    So?

    The statement would still be 100% true same whether the child who’s parents are bludging off their fellow citizens was John Key, Helen Clark, the person who cures cancer or Jesus Christ.

    If you can’t support yourself and rely on others to support you by what right do you think you have to bred?

    • les 1.1
      10 April 2015 at 8:24 am

      so whats the solution then?Lower the cost of a child?

    • RedLogix 1.2
      10 April 2015 at 8:26 am

      As predicted below – damaged mind incapable of seeing the connection.

      (And not able to spell either.)

      • humPrac 1.2.1
        10 April 2015 at 1:04 pm

        That spelling error is the type that could have easily been caused by mistyping or miss-typing a character(half of a double ‘e’ missing). Resorting to that as a form of discredit, is somewhat weak. (Assuming I picked up the same error as you did)

        Nonetheless your main point makes sense, it’s ironic that a supporter of Key would be against the very thing that bought Key onto earth.

        • North 1.2.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 7:21 pm

          SO ironic………..spot on hP ! Even if it was a stunt no matter, It’s Captain Keyophile to a tee. Much like Captain Mainwaring on “Dad’s Army”. Fascination with Churchill but lippier and jeans not so skinny.

          Irony so pungent it’s like……”Fuck man, you’re a dick !”

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3
      10 April 2015 at 8:33 am

      That it upsets ignorant right wing scum is a good enough reason.

    • Atiawa 1.4
      10 April 2015 at 8:34 am

      Fundamental to our being is the need to reproduce. A biological desire, not one driven by the variances of the market.

      • aerobubble 1.4.1
        10 April 2015 at 10:26 am

        Yet Bennett was clear on babies, its a choice she said, you are saying she was wrong about basic biology…

    • weka 1.5
      10 April 2015 at 8:45 am

      “If you can’t support yourself and rely on others to support you by what right do you think you have to bred?”

      Nobody supports themselves, they all rely on society (and often on other individuals). Even fuckwits like Hoskings, who last time I looked had a govt job and is using that income to raise his kids.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.5.1
        10 April 2015 at 10:27 am

        +111

        Without society propping them up these arseholes demanding that others not have children also wouldn’t be able to afford to have children.

    • Philip Ferguson 1.6
      10 April 2015 at 12:32 pm

      I guess because we live in a society. Plus those children whose upkeep you pay for will subsequently go out to work and create wealth which will pay to keep you when you’re old. And I don’t just mean pensions, I mean all the free healthcare and so on.

      That’s why everyone has a vested interest in making sure that other people’s kids have a good chance in life and can contribute to making society better in the future.

      I don’t have kids and I am very happy to contribute to the costs of people who do decide to have kids, regardless of whether or not they can ‘afford’ them.

      The simple fact is that *society* needs to reproduce. I chose not to – and to the best of my knowledge I haven’t fathered any – and therefore it devolves on me to contribute financially to those who made the decision to have kids, because they are performing a social good from which I will ultimately benefit.

      What a bitter and twisted (and short-sighted) little miserabilist (and miser) Mike Hosking is.

    • Colonial Rawshark 1.7
      10 April 2015 at 12:35 pm

      If you can’t support yourself and rely on others to support you by what right do you think you have to bred?

      Dear friend, the wealthiest 1% are the ones who need – and take – the most support and resources from modern society. Do you propose that we should change that and remove their power, privileges and protections?

      If not, is there a special reason you want to keep all their power, privileges and protections in place?

  2. RedLogix 2
    10 April 2015 at 8:23 am

    Like all brain-damaged Tories – Hoskings knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

    I know exactly what Hosking would say if someone challenged him with the panels above – “But that’s not relevant!” His mind would be literally incapable of making the connection.

  3. CnrJoe 3
    10 April 2015 at 8:29 am

    And Hoskings talks of the first time he went to Oz was to see his dad. Was he raised singularly?

    • swordfish 3.1
      10 April 2015 at 10:20 am

      He certainly only seems to mention his Mother when interviewers ask about his early life (she was, incidentally, a Jim Anderton supporter).

      • Atiawa 3.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 10:36 am

        So what happened that changed his possible nurtured view of the common good?

        I never cease to be amazed by the number of people today who have become vehemently opposed to the left leaning views of their parents. It’s like they didn’t learn a thing from their upbringing or have become totally captured by the “look after number one” mantra.
        Why is this???
        Surely the “struggle” is as great today as what it was mid last century & before.
        I wonder what role excessive household debt plays in our less caring of others attitudes?

        • saveNZ 3.1.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 12:37 pm

          I think people still feel that way, it is just the messages of the media and very powerful interests are suppressing it.

          That is why Campbell Live is a target. Rather than people artificially competing on an Island for a job, record contract, survival, getting a man, on reality TV, current Affairs shows the real reality for many people. CL shows poverty, poor political decisions, disaster aftermaths, etc Instead of blaming the people like Hoskins, John Campbell asks the questions What are we doing about this?

          How can Christie peddle her reality TV shows, and Weldon make money in his competitive world if real reality is not their reality? By suppressing real reality and putting in their versions of reality on reality shows.

          • Atiawa 3.1.1.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 12:56 pm

            So it’s not as if people have stopped caring about the plight of others less fortunate, they just want to come home to something that has an entertainment component that allows them to switch off (the mind), have a chuckle & blob?

  4. halfcrown 4
    10 April 2015 at 8:31 am

    If you can’t afford a private school don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

    If you cant afford a Casino don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it

    If you cant afford a Stadium don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it

    If you can’t afford a smelter, don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it

    If you cant afford a Velodrome don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

    If you cant afford to build a prison don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

    If you can’t afford an irrigation system don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.

    and on and on ad infinitum

    Another right wing brainless fuckwit.

    • Mr Nobody 4.1
      10 April 2015 at 8:43 am

      If you cant afford a Casino don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it
      – Yep

      If you cant afford a Stadium don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it
      – Yep

      If you can’t afford a smelter, don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it
      – Yep

      If you cant afford a Velodrome don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.
      – Yep

      If you can’t afford an irrigation system don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.
      – Yep

      If you can’t afford a private school don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.
      – Not just a private school. Just school.
      If you can’t afford to educate a child you can’t afford one so don’t reproduce.

      If you cant afford to build a prison don’t expect the rest of us to pay for it.
      – Well you need to do something with criminals and unless your prepared to bring back the death penalty (which based on recent research may be a good idea http://tinyurl.com/ns6skar). But at a minimum they should be billed for their incarceration.

      • Paul 4.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 8:46 am

        Your views are repugnant.

      • weka 4.1.2
        10 April 2015 at 8:48 am

        Whose paying for you carbon emissions Mr Nobody?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2.1
          10 April 2015 at 9:00 am

          Whose paying for the downstream effects of his disgusting beliefs and low character?

      • Foreign waka 4.1.3
        10 April 2015 at 9:57 am

        So we all should just leave you alone and have you fending for yourself in the woods? How long will that last? We certainly don’t have to pay for your retirement.

      • DoublePlusGood 4.1.4
        10 April 2015 at 12:23 pm

        So you would have starved to death within days of birth. Top notch ideology you’ve got there.

      • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.5
        10 April 2015 at 12:45 pm

        Mr Nobody – I doubt you are sincere in any of those views. Certainly I haven’t seen any comments from you attacking John Key and National for their corporate welfarism.

      • halfcrown 4.1.6
        10 April 2015 at 5:27 pm

        Answer to Mr Nobody at 8.43 am

        I am all for paying for the infrastructure of this country through our collective taxes which includes education, prisons and childcare assisting unfortunates who have a struggle to cope (there for the grace of god etc.) After all we are a supposedly an intelligent species and civilisations only survive when the weakest and most vulnerable are looked after.
        But I object gifting a prison to the likes of Serco so they can make money at our expense. or subsidising private schools so some fat cat can send his/her privileged little shit to, when the once great eduction system in this country is being run into the ground..
        I also object to paying for some privileged prat who wants to play at life riding round and round and round with one of those stupid hats on until he disappears up his own orifice.
        I also thought under the Ayn Rand fuck the world system, everybody stood on their own two feet. That being the case, why the large handouts to the likes of Re Tinto? Please, don’t give me the shit about saving jobs.

        It would be nice for once if that fuckwit engaged his pea sized brain and had a comment about that lot.

        Whilst we are on about Ayn Rand, I have just finished reading about the history of the East End where I grew up as a small kid during the war The book is called “Shadow Of The Workhouse”
        Very Ayn Randish this, no welfare no child support,no birth control just big families living in object poverty no nothing. Child deaths at birth 60%, death of mothers at birth 30% This would suit this fuckwit Hoskins, right down to the ground. If the kids lived but could not survive they would not be a cost to him because there was no welfare, nothing, only the Workhouse. The paradise all the right wing fuckwits have wet dreams over.
        But on the other hand who would have worked in the docks or Bryant & May match factory where the women suffered from what was known as Phossy Jaw http://spartacus-educational.com/TUmatchgirls.htm and who would they have as cannon fodder so the Armament Manufacturers could make a killing (pun intended), and in Hoskins case serve his Latte, if the kids did not survive or parents had a choice and did not have kids because they could not afford to have them.

        The likes of Hoskins and other right wing fuckwits never cease to amaze me, they get most indignant and their tits in a tangle over perceived “bludgers” sucking at the public tit, expounding bullshit and pet theorems, as if they personally had to pay out their own pockets, but at the same time, closing a blind eye to these corporate bludgers.

        • halfcrown 4.1.6.1
          10 April 2015 at 5:46 pm

          Sorry I lied, they did have birth control, a back street abortionist with a knitting needle, and other horrific methods.

    • saveNZ 4.2
      10 April 2015 at 9:19 am

      @Halfcrown +1

    • ianmac 4.3
      10 April 2015 at 11:55 am

      Very true halfcrown. Yep!

  5. Whateva next? 5
    10 April 2015 at 8:40 am

    Usual vapid comments from Hoskins, same “off the cuff” crap from Henry we are once again subjected to on TV3.
    The blandness is now sooooooo blatant, since Key arrived, and the stifling of National broadcasting.

  6. vto 6
    10 April 2015 at 8:47 am

    fuck fuck fuck hosking rubbish never ceases……

    Mike Hosking has no understanding of the human society or history.

    Hosking says “if you cannot afford a child don’t have one and don’t expect everyone else to pay for it”

    The true question is “can society afford the children”, not “can the individual afford the children”

    Not sure why this needs pointing out but humans are communal creatures, we are NOT a bunch of individuals who happen to exist next to each other.

    The village raises the child, not just the parents. Get this in your THICK HEAD Hosking.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      10 April 2015 at 10:33 am

      The true question is “can society afford the children”, not “can the individual afford the children”

      That is the actual question and the answer to which comes back to sustainability. RWNJs don’t believe in being sustainable as National’s gutting of the RMA proves.

    • The Murphey 6.2
      10 April 2015 at 11:06 am

      The true question is “can society afford the children”, not “can the individual afford the children”

      Once people arrive at the juncture when they begin to accept the messages which come through the mouths of Hosking et al are messages of those who despise humanity then the message will have context

      Those behind the messages have been attacking humanity for an age and will continue to do so until such time as they are stopped

      It’s almost unfathomable to allow the mind to believe that we are effectively being hunted down but in my opinion that is exactly what is going on

  7. tinfoilhat 7
    10 April 2015 at 8:52 am

    I don’t know why anyone bothers to take Hosking seriously.

    He is a vapid self absorbed twit who doesn’t realise how ridiculous he is. Far better to listen to Jeremy Wells impersonations of him.

    • Jones 7.1
      10 April 2015 at 9:07 am

      Thanks to Jeremy Wells, I can no longer listen to Mike Hosking without laughing, he’s just a joke, but when he trots out this sort of crap… too vile to be funny.

  8. The lost sheep 8
    10 April 2015 at 8:56 am

    This is a question that gets much more illuminating from a political philosophy point of view if you ask….
    To what extent do you expect people to be able to have children they can’t personally afford to support adequately, and expect the State to pay for them?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1
      10 April 2015 at 9:03 am

      The state is the people, and exists to serve the people. All the people, not just those with the biggest bribes.

      To what extent should Cabinet Club members fear being dragged screaming into the public square and beheaded? You want your 18thC ethics, lets have some 18thC consequences.

      • The lost sheep 8.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 9:33 am

        “lets have some 18thC consequences.”

        Seems harsh OAB. I’m sure you understand what the consequences of having children you couldn’t afford to care for was in the 18th Century.

        We’ve moved on from there I believe.

        • weka 8.1.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 10:00 am

          Yes, we have. We now have a social security system that is meant to prevent the worst of the 18thC realties.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.1.2
        10 April 2015 at 10:36 am

        IIRC, the actual punishment for speculation and bribery was hanging.

    • vto 8.2
      10 April 2015 at 9:23 am

      “To what extent do you expect people to be able to have children they can’t personally afford to support adequately, and expect the State to pay for them?”

      The extent to which New Zealand as an entire nation can afford to have children.

      New Zealand is rich enough to support fucking heaps more children. Bring it on.

      • The lost sheep 8.2.1
        10 April 2015 at 9:35 am

        You believe that people should be able to have as many children as they want, regardless of any considerations of their personal ability to support them VTO?

        I’ll put you at the opposite extreme to Hosking then.

        • vto 8.2.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 9:37 am

          ha ha – at least there is an admission that hosking is an extremist

          • The lost sheep 8.2.1.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 10:12 am

            I have never been an apologist for Hosking VTO – if that is your implication.
            I think extremists are all equally dangerous. Your type of extremism included.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.2
          10 April 2015 at 10:37 am

          You believe that people should be able to have as many children as they want, regardless of any considerations of their personal ability to support them VTO?

          That isn’t what VTO said. In fact, it’s not even close.

          • The lost sheep 8.2.1.2.1
            10 April 2015 at 10:46 am

            VTO’s answer to the question “To what extent do you expect people to be able to have children they can’t personally afford to support adequately, and expect the State to pay for them?”
            was…

            “New Zealand is rich enough to support fucking heaps more children. Bring it on.”

            Silly of me to misinterpret that obviously.

        • The Murphey 8.2.1.3
          10 April 2015 at 11:14 am

          You believe that people should be able to have as many children as they want, regardless of any considerations of their personal ability to support them VTO?

          People have the right to choose and unless you are in favour of forced selected sterilization then you have NO control over the number of children people may choose to have

          Q. Are you in favour of forced selected sterilization ?

          You could out any number of commentators in front of Hosking and they would walk through his flimsy position

          Wipe your chin

        • McFlock 8.2.1.4
          10 April 2015 at 12:07 pm

          Why do you regard “not leaving children to starve and not forcibly sterilizing poor people” as “extreme”?

      • weka 8.2.2
        10 April 2015 at 9:59 am

        “New Zealand is rich enough to support fucking heaps more children. Bring it on.”

        Um, no it can’t. 1. climate change. 2. we still have no idea what population the NZ landbase can support in a post-carbon world. We should be at the very least moving towards a steady state economy, probably a degrowth one to allow for immigration.

        The problem with Hoskings’ argument is that it’s completely outside of the realities of population, and so he misses the elephant in the living room that selfish fucks like him are more of a problem in their breeding than poor people. Willing to bet his ecological foot print is far higher than most women on the DPB. But all of us have ecological footprints far higher than the world can sustain.

        • marty mars 8.2.2.1
          10 April 2015 at 10:07 am

          I agree with your second paragraph but your first not so much – we do have plenty of room for more children – the landbase can support more population than we currently have – we will have to be sustainable though and many will go back to the land in various ways but imo it is not correct to say this country ‘can’t’ – won’t maybe but it could be done.

          • weka 8.2.2.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 10:17 am

            “we do have plenty of room for more children – the landbase can support more population than we currently have”

            Do you have any evidence of that?

            • marty mars 8.2.2.1.1.1
              10 April 2015 at 10:31 am

              No, I live in the country, so just opinion – I’d be wary of evidence/studies etc mainly because too much is slanted to give the results wanted and a lot of people want what they already have.

              • weka …
                10 April 2015 at 10:44 am

                As far as I know the work hasn’t been done in NZ. So the precautionary principle applies until we do know. The consequences of you being wrong are far worse than the consequences of me being wrong.

                We also know that globally NZ uses far more than its share of resources.

                I don’t understand your argument about evidence. I would have thought bias would skew towards over estimating capacity.

                • marty mars …
                  10 April 2015 at 11:11 am

                  Yes it is all opinion.

                  Those who want to maintain their unsustainable western lifestyles will use whatever they can, including ‘evidence’ to do so (not meaning you).

                  If you go to the country you’ll see heaps of land currently being used to grow cows and profits for individuals – change that.

                  • weka …
                    10 April 2015 at 11:43 am

                    I live in the country. Converting that to resource growing for an increasing population, and doing that without fossil fuels, is not as straight forward as you are making out. Esp taking CC into account. Like I said, precautionary principle.

                    • marty mars …
                      10 April 2015 at 1:00 pm

                      yes it will take big changes, changes that will/are being forced upon us by cc and other things as i’ve discussed here

                      http://mars2earth.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/go-home-it-is-safe-place-make-it-so.html

                      “Instead of calling people to the cities, help them move out to the rural areas and pay the to do it. This would rejuvenate those areas, release pressure from the cities infrastructure, help reinforce connections and communities, teach the basics like how to grow food, how to live in a community, how to live simpler lifestyles and so on and so on. Many Māori are connecting back to their ancestral marae. This connecting can be encouraged and facilitated by Government for all of the reasons above. To further encourage the move I’d pay superannuation earlier to Māori going home so that they could learn and teach and build the mana of their marae and themselves.”

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 3:57 pm

                      very good marty. Love the suggestion about Māori super.

                      (your comment to the commenter is funny too).

                  • DoublePlusGood …
                    10 April 2015 at 12:27 pm

                    When a change to sustainable agriculture is forced, you are not going to be able to support anywhere near as many people as you can currently in New Zealand

            • les 8.2.2.1.1.2
              10 April 2015 at 10:36 am

              when a country like Gt Britain supports a population of about 15x that of NZ with roughly the same land mass one would think it pretty logical.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                10 April 2015 at 10:41 am

                How much food does Britain import? What is the state of their rivers and seas?

                I suspect that, once you take into account all factors, you’ll find that Britain can’t actually support their present population.

                • weka …
                  10 April 2015 at 10:47 am

                  Plus so much of the UK’s current society is artificially supported by fossil fuels. Even with renewables they’d be hard pressed in a post carbon world.

                • les …
                  10 April 2015 at 11:08 am

                  well given that NZ has plenty of arable land,water and a temperate climate ,it can certainly support a larger population,foodwise at least..All factors considered ,the reality is Britain is supporting a population of 60 + million?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    10 April 2015 at 11:16 am

                    well given that NZ has plenty of arable land,water and a temperate climate ,it can certainly support a larger population,foodwise at least

                    Not necessarily.

                    All factors considered ,the reality is Britain is supporting a population of 60 + million?

                    Why are you asking me? You’re the one making the assertion that they can. I suggest you do the research into finding out if Britain actually can rather than basing your assumptions on the fact that they have 60m people living there already.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 12:16 pm

                      look at the implications of your own posts…’how much food does Britain import’?and ‘I suspect that….’I assume Britain is supporting the current population there by whatever means is necessary because I am unaware of mass starvation,and rioting in the streets because people have no food!(YES I realise there is poverty in Britain).I wasn’t asking you ,even though that is a question mark…I’m telling you.You obviously are interested in nitpicking despite the fact you have no facts to back your own position.You can argue about what ‘support’ means of course and I accept in means more than food.

                  • weka …
                    10 April 2015 at 12:41 pm

                    Ffd les. Go read up on climate change and post carbon. What you are suggesting is fantasy land. It’s not just food either, unless you think the next generations don’t need shelter, warmth, fuel, fibre etcetc

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 12:43 pm

                      I was talking about now…not the future that you seem to think you can predict.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 3:14 pm

                      Having children, or increasing population inherently means considering the future. But even if you want to look at just now, what we are doing is in no way sustainable. You are a future eater.

                      Besides, you replied to my comment about cc and sustainability. If you want to have a fantasy conversation about a mythic place where there are no physical limits, go somewhere else.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 April 2015 at 4:22 pm

                    In fact, the UK is only “60% self-sufficient in all food”, and (they predict) this will worsen in future. You may be in denial about the greenhouse effect, it’ll just get you laughed at around here.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 5:27 pm

                      so what…people are still having children and they get fed…whats your point?

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 5:44 pm

                      It’s been explained a number of times now. You are well into trole mode so expect to be treated accordingly

            • The Murphey 8.2.2.1.1.3
              10 April 2015 at 11:18 am

              Weka it’s not the number of people it is the way the planet is being run that is the problem

              <10bn is NOT the problem

              I'll assume you understand that well enough

              • weka …
                10 April 2015 at 12:44 pm

                In a post carbon world you need to look at land bases and what they can support. Global figures aren’t much help. It’s fossil fuel thinking that we can keep shipping things long distance or expect other places to support our standard of living.

                • les …
                  10 April 2015 at 3:31 pm

                  around 1880 the Dunedin shipped the first refrigerated meat exports to England…it was a sailing ship…and btw when you can overcome your obsession with global warming ,I mean climate change,read what posters write and comprehend ,a)who they are replying to and b)what they actually said…e.g you=’t’s not just food either, unless you think the next generations don’t need shelter, warmth, fuel, fibre etcetc’ at 12.41…and my post at 12.16…’
                  You can argue about what ‘support’ means of course and I accept in means more than food.’

                  • weka …
                    10 April 2015 at 3:38 pm

                    You believe that the NZ landbase can support a much higher population right now. I’ve said we’re talking about population over time. If you want to talk about what’s real, do that. If you want to talk about a fantasy, do it elsewhere.

                    “around 1880 the Dunedin shipped the first refrigerated meat exports to England…it was a sailing ship”

                    Yes, but the industrial revolution was well under way by then, and it was supported by fossil fuels and that was what enabled refrigerated shipping. We can still use sailing ships, but we can’t run society the way it is now in the quantity we are used to. You are trying to defy the laws of physics.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 3:47 pm

                      surely you can see the flaw in your arguement .The topic is the affordability of having children in NZ.Whatever abilities you may think you possess regarding what you think may or may not happen in the future…that is the real realm of fantasy.So stop trying to be a smartarse.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 3:53 pm

                      no, the topic of this subthread is sustainable population. I know this because I raised the issue in response to vto saying we can afford lots more children.

                      CC and resource depletion are already happening.

                      You keep changing the goalposts. You can go somewhere else if you don’t like the challenge here, but if you keep replying to me I’m going to keep critiquing your comments.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 4:00 pm

                      the only one moving goal posts is you.Bending the topic to what must be your favourite …climate change’…comprehension is not your strong point…go back and read your own posts …in context ffs.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 4:03 pm

                      I’m not responsible for you being in denial of the connections between having babies and increases in population, and between increases in population and impacts on resources. If you don’t like the subthread I’ve raised, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

                • les …
                  10 April 2015 at 4:47 pm

                  your sub thread…= threadjacking…perhaps you should go ..somewhere else where everyone thinks you’re a guru.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    10 April 2015 at 4:52 pm

                    🙄

                  • weka …
                    10 April 2015 at 5:05 pm

                    Lots of other people have been talking in this sub thread les, you’re the only one that’s got a problem.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 5:20 pm

                      not the ‘Labour did it too ‘defence…sharpen up fella.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 5:42 pm

                      Fuck off if you can’t debate.

                    • les …
                      10 April 2015 at 5:52 pm

                      go somewhere else where everyone agrees with your views.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      10 April 2015 at 6:41 pm

                      I might be wrong Weka, but wasn’t it you that pointed out this is principally an ‘argument’ site?

                      Honestly, throwing an idea in here and expecting it to develop into constructive and genuine ‘debate’ is about as likely as taking Paul Henry to Otara for the day and expecting the experience to turn him into the next John Campbell.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 6:53 pm

                      It’s a site for robust debate. Everyone else in this sub thread understands that except for les who is being a brat (presumably because he can’t argue the points). Arguing for the sake of arguing gets tedious pretty quick

                    • The lost sheep …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:05 pm

                      “Arguing for the sake of arguing gets tedious pretty quick”

                      More power to you for your sincere and honest efforts Weka, but I’ve been watching this site for 6 months or so, and as far as I can see, arguing for the sake of arguing shows no sign of losing it’s thrill for many of the daily commentators!

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:16 pm

                      yep, but most people can and do at least debate the actual issues at the same time 😉

                    • The lost sheep …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:50 pm

                      That small ‘in group’ maybe delude themselves that they are ‘debating’ matters Weka.

                      But in reality, most commentators here are extremely bigoted. Small deviations from the ‘orthodoxy’ are permitted, but anything even remotely threatening to provoke some genuine questioning of ideas is quickly and brutally put down.

                      It’s quite entertaining at times. That’s the only reason I come back regularly. Long ago gave up the hope this site might represent some kind of vibrant and tolerant exploration of political ideas.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 April 2015 at 7:58 pm

                      😆 TLS

                      Yeah, people here are sick of right wing rote-learned drivel being presented as truth by people who don’t realise they’re spouting the same tired old lies that everyone’s heard ad nauseam.

                      Like you, for example. Then you pack a sad and claim there’s no debate, and in a way you’re right: drivel is drivel no matter how many times you warm it up.

                      What you call “the orthodoxy” is in fact just evidence-based arguments as opposed to faith-based. Get used to it.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 8:02 pm

                      It’s not aiming for tolerant, they want robust. I disagree with your characterisation re orthodoxy. I’ve had significant disagreements with many of the regulars here. I suspect the differences you are talking about are political not ideological, and they don’t get brutally put down so much as seriously challenged. It’s not for everyone that’s for sure, pretty harsh environment at times. I also notice that how I behave affects how people debate with me.

                      There are a fair few people here who have similar politics to me, but I have a lot of respect for the range from Lynn’s more conservative leftness to Adam or dave’s radical leftness. Centrist or right wing views will always get challenged hard in that context, that’s the whole point, but I value commenters like yourself or b waghirn who don’t fit so well with that.

                      I have learnt a huge amount from being here, political, philosophical, relational, my own strengths and weaknesses.

                    • The lost sheep …
                      10 April 2015 at 8:35 pm

                      I was just thinking about the qualities of true debate Weka…

                      “debate embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for divergent points of view and rigorous self-examination. Debate is, above all, a way for those who hold opposing views to discuss controversial issues without descending to insult, emotional appeals or personal bias.”

                      But then one of the site bigots turned up with his steel-toed boots on to prove how far from ideal the environment on this forum can be for genuine discussion…..

                      Must be something more interesting to do.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      10 April 2015 at 9:23 pm

                      “Rigorous self-examination” – don’t make me laugh. Rigorous self-examination and false beliefs don’t mix, and yet every time one of your false beliefs is pointed out to you, you clutch at it like a security blankie.

                      Go on, call me some more names.

                    • weka …
                      10 April 2015 at 9:38 pm

                      “But then one of the site bigots turned up with his steel-toed boots on to prove how far from ideal the environment on this forum can be for genuine discussion….”

                      How is what OAB did different from you calling him a bigot?

  9. Robert Atack 9
    10 April 2015 at 9:00 am

    Maybe once we have the problems solved with the children we have now, we could start having more?
    Like 1 dying nearly every second from a preventable ‘problem’ – food, water, security.
    ‘We’ have another 3,500 ‘in the way’ of IS at the moment.
    But then how effective would say the 10 year sanctions on Iraq have been if it wasn’t for the 500,000 children that died.
    The munitions manufacturers would miss them.
    Winz would be out of work without a constant supply of ill treated children.
    And then there are the domestic ‘weapons’ we use in divorce, hate to give that up, I mean the whole ‘industrial complex’ that is the family court.
    So yeah we do such a great job of looking after our ‘loved ones’
    The Natz being a fine example, they use your children as weapons against you, they use them to suppress descent, they always use then as political fodder.
    Sting said “I hope the Russians love their children” it is clear politicians don’t.

    • vto 9.1
      10 April 2015 at 9:15 am

      pet subject of yours mr attack yes….. yet you have no children of your own against which to assess this most largest of subjects for people…

      your views and actions are clearly genuine yet without this background imo a vital piece is missing in your assessment quiver

      • Robert Atack 9.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 9:22 am

        your views and actions are clearly genuine yet without this background imo a vital piece is missing in your assessment quiver

        So because I don’t have children my opinion that children are suffering doesn’t count?
        And it is only 1 t ya clown, or can’t you read?

        • vto 9.1.1.1
          10 April 2015 at 9:24 am

          No, not that your view doesn’t count…. that your view is weakened. Imo.

          don’t understand your last sentence

      • freedom 9.1.2
        10 April 2015 at 11:41 am

        “yet you have no children of your own against which to assess this most largest of subjects for people…”

        IMHO, that was not the most base ignorant or offensive thing you have ever posted vto, but it probably gets pretty close.

        & in regards to your second comment about people with no kids having a weakened view which implies some lesser right to comment on society, the same could be said of parents and their extreme subjectivity when criticism of their parental choices are expressed in any societal context.

        To be honest, for someone who often says how important the diversity of community is if we are to achieve real progress in society, I am a little shocked that you would write either of those statements.

        • vto 9.1.2.1
          10 April 2015 at 3:23 pm

          I see no problem in it at all.

          Just like any subject, experience has a bearing.

          Nothing bad in it.

          As for this… “which implies some lesser right to comment on society” ………. you are reading it incorrectly. As you intimate with your admitting assumption …

          • freedom 9.1.2.1.1
            10 April 2015 at 10:41 pm

            ” not that your view doesn’t count…. that your view is weakened”
            if you did not mean to imply an inferior/superior position is the end result of such a statement, then please, elucidate the correct reading.

            and to save us all some time, maybe supply a list of which aspects of society those people without children are deemed qualified to share thoughts on

            or you could simply admit you misspoke,
            maybe apologise to anyone who took offence, albeit silent

    • weka 9.2
      10 April 2015 at 9:49 am

      Robert, that’s an argument for selfish libertarians like Hoskings not being allowed to have children. They after all are the ones with the power to run soceity on free contraception, abotion on demand, a free press, poverty relief etc etc, all of which would reduce population, but they simply choose not to.

  10. vto 10
    10 April 2015 at 9:21 am

    I don’t think any comments on this post will come close to explaining it with as much clarity as the post itself.

    John Key’s mum couldn’t afford children and the taxpayers paid for John Key’s home and childhood.

    Says it all. Hosking has it completely and utterly wrong. Proved by the very existence of John Key himself

  11. mac1 11
    10 April 2015 at 9:37 am

    In 1961 I lived in Christchurch where my father was a corner grocer who also worked voluntarily for Vincent de Paul, the Catholic charity. I remember delivering food parcels around Christmas time to needy families in the very terrace where John Key lived.

    Then, and Mike Hosking needs to hear this clearly, people did care about others and did give help to their neighbours. They did not judge but gave assistance.

    I was told to put the box of groceries onto the front porch, ring the bell and leave quickly, so as to avoid embarrassment for the recipients.

    This was a seminal moment for me at the age of 12.

    My father would have spat upon Mike Hosking’s views. As do I.

  12. coaster 12
    10 April 2015 at 9:41 am

    it realy gets me pddd off when people who dont have kids spout off about this.

    if you look at this from a different point of view, having kids is about maintenance repairs on the society machine. without a new generation who will earn money to contribute to the future of the economy and society through taxes etc.. without new people our economy and society will breakdown and stop.

    those of us who have kids are supplying the future kogs for the economy, largely at our own cost and to our own loss of earnings (plus other things)could ask for the costs back when our cogs become productive.

    if hoskings realy beleives this, then he will be happy with the parents receiving a payment for the average value added for each new citizen that is produced.

    • The Murphey 12.1
      10 April 2015 at 11:24 am

      Q. Are you suggesting the reason to have children is so they can continue the current accepted model of modern day slavery ?

  13. AUDNZD 13
    10 April 2015 at 9:43 am

    And yet Mr Hosking is right. Why bring a child to this world if one CANNOT afford it? Why force him to endure a hard life from an early age? Parents should think twice.

    • saveNZ 13.1
      10 April 2015 at 9:49 am

      What about the child that is emotionally abused by it’s wealthy parents who give it birth and then hand it off to Nannys and private schools to raise it. That produces these fucked up Kids missing emotional parts of their brains necessary for social function.

      • Philip Ferguson 13.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 12:43 pm

        It’s funny that Hoskings comes from a quite working class background but has taken on the views of precisely this wealthy elite.

        Even though he thinks like them and has developed their tastes, they still look down on him as an oaf, albeit a useful one.

        Phil

    • The Murphey 13.2
      10 April 2015 at 11:29 am

      An yet many parents from generations past including my own and those of almost any of my friends base all openly acknowledge that had they been able to afford to start a family then they would not have done so

      They chose to do what came naturally

      Even today there are many who are starting up and expanding families openly admitting they “can’t afford it”

      Many of them are in the so called middle class

    • DoublePlusGood 13.3
      10 April 2015 at 12:31 pm

      Given that our current economic system will necessarily create poverty, according to your rules, there will always be a certain portion of the population that are not permitted to have children. Given that society created that situation and put people in that position in the first place, how is it in any way acceptable to place such a limitation on reproduction. Your ideology is nothing short of eugenics.

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.4
      10 April 2015 at 12:48 pm

      And yet Mr Hosking is right. Why bring a child to this world if one CANNOT afford it? Why force him to endure a hard life from an early age? Parents should think twice.

      Both you and Mr Hosking are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because you care more about money than about people living full lives in a society and an economy designed to enable and support that.

  14. coaster 14
    10 April 2015 at 9:44 am

    i wonder if hosking eats a hot dog with a knife and fork, like david cameron.

  15. saveNZ 15
    10 April 2015 at 9:46 am

    Hoskins, Mark Weldon and TV commentators of the ilk, are like the Stepford wives to some neoliberal ideology that worships money above all else. The human part of their brain has been replaced. They are some sort of Borg like beings that connect to some unknown central control villainous leader. Working as a system they are infiltrating the world via politicians, media and external consultants spreading their robotic doctrine against human values, decency and children.

    The scary thing is that they are trying to in doctrine individuals to believe that money is actually more important than good will, society, family. Just cut workers, jobs, the environment because that extra 100 million of profit is necessary for the stakeholders/shareholders of that elite 1% that are controlling the world’s wealth.

    What is their final solution?

    • The Murphey 15.1
      10 April 2015 at 11:31 am

      What is their final solution?

      They represent a eugenics based ideology

      • saveNZ 15.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 12:45 pm

        Or a monetary based ideology.

        Replacing class and eugenics of previous generations, they are espousing that only the wealthy should have children, and the more money you have the more important you are to society. In fact you don’t need to be human, you can be a company and you are more important as an entity than the people who work for it and society should be giving money to the company via corporate welfare because the company is more important than giving tax dollars to the poor or jobless because the poor and jobless are worthless to society and the company is more important.

        It is the same disgusting movement of class and eugenics but now a new direction, unparalleled greed.

  16. Joe 16
    10 April 2015 at 9:48 am

    And what of changes in fortune? Should the father killed on his way home from work by a drunk driver have known that before he had a family ten years earlier? Don’t spout “life insurance” to me, nothing makes up for the life time earning power of a career. Or known his wife was going to die of cancer?

    [r0b: Welcome to The Standard. I’ve shortened your handle since we already have a well established Joe90 here]

  17. Stephanie Rodgers 17
    10 April 2015 at 9:49 am

    The example of Ruth Key is a good one, but for a slightly different reason than the image says.

    When Ruth and George Key had their three children, they probably COULD “afford” to have children. But George died, leaving Ruth to raise three kids on her own.

    And that’s why we need a strong social welfare system. Because life doesn’t always go the way you assume it will, and children – like little John Key – shouldn’t be thrown out onto the street because their father met an untimely end (or because there was a global financial crisis and their parents lost their jobs, or because the high dollar is killing our manufacturing industry, etc.)

    • weka 17.1
      10 April 2015 at 9:51 am

      Or because the governments that Hoskings votes for create the conditions under which many people have unwanted pregnancies.

      • DoublePlusGood 17.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 12:34 pm

        Or, even more fundamentally, the way we run our society forces people into poverty, and then we tell them they cannot have kids.

    • Kevin 17.2
      10 April 2015 at 12:35 pm

      Exactly Stephanie. Life rarely works out how you planned it and circumstances can change quite dramatically over time.

      How many of those Sanford workers who are about to lose their jobs have dependent children? And if there are no job prospects in the immediate future and need State assistance in the interim, are they supposed to have foreseen this happening and made better life decisions 5, 10, 15 years ago?

      • Stephanie Rodgers 17.2.1
        10 April 2015 at 6:29 pm

        Exactly!

        There’s an odd situation in New Zealand (and probably elsewhere) that we feel huge sympathy for workers who are made redundant – but the next day when they apply for the dole we suddenly cast them as lazy bludgers.

  18. peterh 18
    10 April 2015 at 9:53 am

    I am one of 12 children ,my parents could not afford to have us all, but it happened .we lived in a state house
    we were all loved and well feed ,and taught to work hard and get results.
    I have been self employed for the last 40 years, have seen great employees come and go
    My three children are all self employed
    Two of my grand children are self employed the other three are in full time work
    I and my brothers and sisters, have repaid every thing the govt 70 years ago invested in
    my family
    Hosking and the people who support him TALK A LOAD OF CRAP

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    10 April 2015 at 10:54 am

    Hosking and the other idiots who say that people shouldn’t have children if they can’t afford them obviously don’t know why the last two or three governments have gotten concerned over the Baby Boomer generation and why Labour wants to raise the age of retirement. Put simply, it’s because there haven’t been enough children to support the Baby Boomers. In fact, it will cause a decline in population and with that also comes a decline in growth of the economy.

    Hosking and the other idiots are totally ignorant.

  20. keyman 20
    10 April 2015 at 11:32 am

    Hoskins is right children are luxury item it not the job of rest of us to feed or educate them if the parents can’t afford them the kids should be put into work camps to earn there food they also be used as cheap labour as john key that was then this is now

    • Paul 20.1
      10 April 2015 at 11:41 am

      This is hateful and repugnant speech.
      Neo darwiwinism at its most repulsive.
      With views like that, you’d make a great guard at Treblinka.

    • The Murphey 20.2
      10 April 2015 at 11:46 am

      I hope for your sake you are not a human being Keyman although the grammatical errors indicate you most likely are ….

      That kind of statement will come back at you and those close to you in no uncertain terms you can count on it

    • McFlock 20.3
      10 April 2015 at 12:03 pm

      lol
      nice hosking impersonation

    • DoublePlusGood 20.4
      10 April 2015 at 12:36 pm

      Newsflash: most people don’t buy their kids at Gucci. Kids are not a luxury item. We got rid of Dickensian child slavery because it is slavery. Oh, also, slavery is a bad thing, just in case you’re really dense and confused.

    • Lanthanide 20.5
      10 April 2015 at 12:40 pm

      “as john key that was then this is now”

      To paraphrase: we used to have a compassionate society, now we don’t.

      Are you happy that society is no longer compassionate?

  21. Paul 21
    10 April 2015 at 11:47 am

    It is very concerning that people like key man can think such vile thoughts about fellow human beings.
    Where do such sociopathic ideas germinate?
    Hosking’s casual hate speech is responsible for letting loose the dark underbelly of NZ.

    • The Murphey 21.1
      10 April 2015 at 12:01 pm

      Hosking is a tool of those who operate the levels above him

      The presentation layer which are the media simply propagate the unified messages around the world

      The messages can become self fulfilling because the owners of the media messages are also those who control global industry and thus control or at least heavily influence the legislative process such as can be witnessed in western societies

      Through ‘monetary scarcity’ and debt the levers of control are used against humanity turning survival essentials into weapons which then turn the human populace against itself and against its own life support system in order to exist

      Evil is in control of this world and will not halt its own progress

  22. meconism 22
    10 April 2015 at 1:15 pm

    To paraphrase ‘Malcolm Campbell’, Hosking is so dense, fuckin light bends around him.

    • Paul 22.1
      10 April 2015 at 1:26 pm

      Remember this pearler from Hosking only the other day.

      ‘House prices represent success in life’

      This ghastly article in the Herald prompted universal disdain in the comments section.
      Here are some responses to Hosking’s article.

      “I’d never have believed that even this ultra-right wing apologist for the National Party could ever come up with such unadulterated claptrap.”

      “You have hit a new low here Mikey. This is the most hideously inaccurate piece of National party cheer leading, ever. Lies by distortion, lies by omission and lies by generalisation. As with most of what you come up with it lacks cold hard analysis.”

      “How does someone so lacking in insight get a news column, a TV show and a radio show?”

      “Can’t tell whether this is profound ignorance, or satire.”

      “Buddy, the only thing more staggering than your ignorance, is your arrogance in spite of it. Please do us all a favour, and stop commenting on topics you simply don’t understand.”

      The comments would be nearly 100% against the claptrap he writes.
      These right wing idiots are not popular.
      They have simply been imposed on us.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11429673

  23. Hateatea 23
    10 April 2015 at 1:26 pm

    It is part of nature to want to reproduce.

    If my mother and father had known that he would be drowned when they had been married more than fourteen years and four children later would they have still had children?

    If I had known that after almost eighteen years of marriage and one child that I would leave rather than being constantly physically and emotionally abused, would I have married him?

    The reality is that we all think that we have chosen the right life partner, that we will live until ripe old age when neither is true for all of us.

    I have needed to turn to the state for support but I also have endeavoured to gain employment to support my child and myself, then later other people’s children and myself. I am not embarrassed or ashamed and no amount of benefit bashing or stigmatising parents raising children on their own is going to make me feel guilty. We all, even the beneficiaries, are taxed to help provide the state support that the unwell, the aged, the jobless and those left to raise their own or other people’s children.

    Those who are anti benefit need to ensure that they NEVER accept state monies, NOT EVER.

    On that basis, Mike Hosking, Paula Bennett et al need to return ALL the monies paid to them by the taxpayer and do their jobs for nothing. If I am unworthy of taxpayers support then so are they.

    • marty mars 23.1
      10 April 2015 at 3:15 pm

      + 1 Nice comment

      • weka 23.1.1
        10 April 2015 at 3:19 pm

        +2

        If we follow Hoskings’ position we see what it means for women who need to leave violent relationships. I wonder if he’s thought that far and just doesn’t care (you made your bed so you can lie in it), or if he’s just thick.

  24. Jessica Parsons 24
    10 April 2015 at 2:05 pm

    NZ is home to almost 7 million cows and 30 million sheep, most of the products of which are exported to other countries, and much which is now affordable only to the well off.

    Much (not all) of livestock pasture could be planted with crops we could eat directly with far more efficiency in nutrition, and much of the land would be significantly improved if not supporting this preponderance of livestock. That’s not even addressing the water pollution issue. At least for humans, we enforce waste management.

    We can totally support more children in NZ, if we chose to. Instead, we’re increasing our investment in the livestock population in the pursuit of overseas luxury markets. No guesses whether it’s small industries who benefit the most from this.

    As always, it’s a distribution issue, not a resource availability issue. Hoskings’ comments are the sort of simplistic poor-bashing that always draw a crowd without providing any real-world solutions.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/64203018/A-big-herd-Dairy-cattle-numbers-on-rise

    http://www.plantandfood.co.nz/growingfutures/cropping

    • weka 24.1
      10 April 2015 at 3:21 pm

      “As always, it’s a distribution issue, not a resource availability issue.”

      Not really. We live on a finite set of islands (and a finite planet). If you genuinely believe we can support a larger population, please tell me what’s the upper limit. Genuinely curious.

      (btw, the cow comparison fails, because it’s grossly unsustainable, and is an extractive commodities export industry not a food and other resource growing industry).

  25. keyman 25
    10 April 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Every human represents an economic unit children are no different they have to be economically viable
    If there. Not then there a nice have item but. Surplus to requirements why do you. think we need more prisons to mop up the excess labour .

    • McFlock 25.1
      10 April 2015 at 3:06 pm

      🙄

      Prisoners (and the children of the poor in general) are not “excess labour”, any more than milk carelessly spilled on the floor is “excess food”.

      Most prisoners are “economically viable units” whom we as a society waste because of laziness, ignorance, and simply not caring.

      Basically, people like you are the reason that most prisons, poverty and hardship exist in NZ.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.2
      10 April 2015 at 3:07 pm

      Fuck off, hatemonger.

    • The Murphey 25.3
      10 April 2015 at 3:23 pm

      It would appear the first post was not ironic or sarcastic

      If you are consciously authoring such comments it would be wise of you to think about why you should desist

      The level of spelling and grammar is very poor and while I would not usually point out such things it could be interpreted that you have mental health issues or perhaps a learning disability

      If on the other hand you do know better and are inflaming deliberately or perhaps even believe what you write that would put you on a direct path for ‘re-balancing’ which I find life has a broad yet effective way of achieving

      Namaste

    • Colonial Rawshark 25.4
      10 April 2015 at 3:43 pm

      Every human represents an economic unit children are no different they have to be economically viable

      Ah yes, an example of neoliberalism turning everything and everyone (young and old) into commodities to be priced out, financially evaluated, bought, sold, and if necessary scrapped.

      Such a sad and twisted way of looking at human society. Time we leave it behind.

    • halfcrown 25.5
      10 April 2015 at 7:51 pm

      Are you for real, or is this just a wind up?

      • wtl 25.5.1
        10 April 2015 at 9:17 pm

        I’m pretty sure its a wind up. But the sad fact is some the RWNJs are so vile that it’s impossible to tell. I once thought that fisiani was someone’s exaggerated impersonation of a RWNJ, but sadly it appears that he is a real person who really holds such extremely comical views.

        • Tracey 25.5.1.1
          11 April 2015 at 9:25 am

          I think he is a mixture. he does post mantras and memes to provoke and occasionally he departs from that script and posts his own comments (as it were). This happened a few days ago. Posts where he leaves out the Honest John and the back to back PR spun lines.

  26. NZSage 26
    10 April 2015 at 3:30 pm

    Ah I get it…simple economics eh Mike.. in the same way if you can’t afford a Ferrari don’t get one.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11329195

    Autocentric prick.

  27. keyman 27
    10 April 2015 at 3:37 pm

    I am sure fizz would agree with my statements of fact
    Here’s a good example when nz subsidized sheep we reach peak sheep of 75 million
    We currently subsidizing the breeding of people beyond there economic value this is distortion of the free market supply of people is greater then demand so internment camps for the homeless disenfranchised would help in the management of economy as conditions get worse more of the population could interned to maintain order and as conditions improve they could be released in orderly numbers

    • Colonial Rawshark 27.1
      10 April 2015 at 3:45 pm

      And this is how neoliberal capitalism views human beings – as sheep to be farmed, herded, bought and sold, and if economically required, to be sent in to the slaughter. All to make the spreadsheets and the ledger entries balance.

      You are a sad indictment on what western “civilisation” has become.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.2
      10 April 2015 at 3:50 pm

      Keep up the hate, Titford needs a cell-mate.

    • Molly 27.3
      10 April 2015 at 5:11 pm

      … and the International Comedy Festival kicks off on the Standard today, with an unscheduled debut performance from keyman.

      Watch as he shuns capital letters, full stops , tbh any basic forms of grammar, and resists any urgings to improve his knowledge of society and humanity. Laughter? …the tears will keep on coming at the knowledge he is a born and bred NZer. (Or failing the Turing test, possibly a fistful of tracts from old ACT party think-tank meetings.)

  28. Richard@Down South 28
    10 April 2015 at 4:59 pm

    Lets pretend its 12 years ago, and John Key is working hard (hah) making money doing currency trades… what if someone ripped him off (for everything), he lost his job, and his house was damaged and insurance wouldn’t pay… would he suddenly not be allowed kids? Circumstances change

  29. SMILIN 29
    11 April 2015 at 12:37 am

    The reason the poor have more children generally is obvious to anyone but people like Hoseclip using journalistic licence to get away with sticking it in everyones face for a paycheck
    The rich get richer the poor get children, and Im poor . life is short and with FASCIST moneyed smart arses like him weve got trouble in a basically decent society
    Hoseclip is really asking for trouble who the hell does he think he is
    maybe he’d like to go to war and see how bloody smart he feels when all you know is a broken life when you need your wife and family for support but you cant have them because your mind has gone to the land of trauma like quite a few Ive known in my life
    We dont need shyte spitting out trash inciting insecurity in peoples rights in a free society

  30. Psycho Milt 30
    11 April 2015 at 7:26 am

    Maybe this has already been covered in comments, but Ruth Key is a crap analogy in this instance. She was a widow, ie at the time their children were born, she and her husband had a reasonable expectation that they’d be able to fund raising those children themselves, and the situation in which she ended up raising them on a benefit is exactly the kind of situation the social welfare system was built for – in fact, state assistance to widows was around well before the first Labour government, let alone the DPB. Whatever arguments you might want to make against Hosking’s grumpy-old-man ranting, this isn’t a good one.

    • weka 30.1
      11 April 2015 at 8:48 am

      Did Hosking differentiate between women who got pregnant before they needed a benefit and those who got pregnant afterwards? His use of the past tense in the graphic in the OP suggests he didn’t.

      edit, ok, so this is about liable parent contributions (not necessarily benefits), and Hosking is pretty clear in the following clip that he is applying his argument retrospectively, so the Mrs Key example if perfect.

      https://www.facebook.com/ONENewsNZ/posts/10152671674576218

      • Tracey 30.1.1
        11 April 2015 at 9:21 am

        EXACTLY!!!!!

      • Psycho Milt 30.1.2
        11 April 2015 at 10:50 am

        I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Hosking believes couples who have children and later lose their income for some reason should take steps to “downsize” their family through adoption, indentured child labour, discreet murders or whatever, but there’s nothing to suggest that in the graphic. “If you can’t afford children, why did you have them?” clearly and unambiguously refers to the point at which decision-making about having children took place.

        And having followed the link to the clip the graphic refers to, the analogy turns out to be even less appropriate. Hosking’s rant is about liable parents trying to weasel out of liability for their own children – does the creator of the graphic intend to suggest Key senior was using being dead to avoid child support?

        • weka 30.1.2.1
          11 April 2015 at 11:35 am

          No, the point being made is that Hoskings is being a judgemental fuck with little understanding of the real world situations that people end up in (or even start in). If he only meant men who intentionally fathered children when they already knew they couldn’t afford them, I’m pretty sure he would have said so. As an alleged journalist, he could also have presented some, you know, actual facts (what exactly is the proportion of state supported kids that were conceived in such circumstances?), instead of proselytising bigotry that damages individuals and society at large.

          And given he’s part of National’s cheerleading squad, he’s a hypocrite too (doubly so, given he has kids and the state pays some of his wages).

    • Tracey 30.2
      11 April 2015 at 9:21 am

      I have NEVER heard Hosking or anyone on this site who advocates the “don’t have children if you cant afford them” line at beneficiaries differentiate between those who already had children. What are the actual statistics on beneficiaries who have conceived and given birth after going onto a benefit. Does it include those born with a disability, or acquired one by accident or illness who cannot work but would like children?

  31. Kelly-Ned 31
    11 April 2015 at 1:18 pm

    It seems to me that most comments miss the real point.
    The concern here does not centre around the adults in these situations, but around the children. They become the victims of other people’s choices.
    Does a humane society really think it is a good idea to pull resources away from these children just because their parents made poor choices, or that things didn’t work out as they had expected. If we punish these kids for their parents mistakes or failed dreams we almost guarantee that they will also make poor choices and have poor outcomes in their lives.
    The only way to get in front of this is to ensure the best possible start for all children – regardless of how they were brought into this world.
    Let’s not get caught up with arguments that essentially try to legitimize punishing children for choices and outcomes that were not their responsibility.

  32. David 32
    11 April 2015 at 7:31 pm

    So having children is only the privilege of the rich now? Maybe all those that are commenting on those less fortunate, should give back their family tax credits then. Unfortunately the world wide system is now one of ineqaulity and privilege, the haves and the have nots. Without the lower classes within the freemarket system the rich don’t get rich, without children the poor have no hope. Under the supposed scheme therefore of only having a child when you can do so without goverment intervention, soon enough your privilege becomes precarious and you end up scrubbing floors.

  33. John Shears 33
    11 April 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Nobody I repeat Nobody, including Fizzy , is offered a choice of parents .

  34. les 34
    12 April 2015 at 8:34 am

    in Oz you get $6000 for having a child,Anyone employed or not.Used to be a lump sum,I believe it is now drip fed.They realise they have an aging population and need to address it.