Key on welfare

68 comments on “Key on welfare ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rodel 1

   13 December 2010 at 7:50 pm

   Perhaps he meant, ” Bugger all of them?”
   • bbfloyd 1.1

     14 December 2010 at 6:11 pm

     your point being? apart from meaningless addition to the sentence. which changes nothing, by the way.
2. Marty G 2

   13 December 2010 at 8:09 pm

   your brighter future, New Zealand
   • Tigger 2.1

     13 December 2010 at 9:10 pm

     Meanwhile, he’s laying the pipe for cops getting guns. Maybe so they can better enforce the peace once Key and his lot start slashing and burning the rest of the benefit system, the education system, health, public service…
     • Carol 2.1.1

       13 December 2010 at 9:14 pm

       I must say, that was my first reaction, Tigger.
3. millsy 3

   13 December 2010 at 8:22 pm

   Disgusting, but not suprising. The guy is a nasty little creep behind that ‘aw shucks’ exterior.

   Some of the older hands go on about how a nasty pig Muldoon was. At least he grew up in the The Great Depression, and deep down, he knew that bowing to the Treasury’s (and his own party’s) demands for neo-liberalism would only lead to hardship and misery to those less fortunate.

   Unfortunately, Key is severely lacking in that sliver of a social concience.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     13 December 2010 at 9:23 pm

     Nah, he grew up in a state house. How did you manage to forget that? He knows all about what it’s like to be poor and such.
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.1

       13 December 2010 at 10:18 pm

       Essentially he despises his own background and wants to leave it as far behind as is possible.

       Bet you he never ever talks to any of the mates he had at school – unless they are rich too.
4. peterlepaysan 4

   13 December 2010 at 8:34 pm

   Remember JK promised not to upset anyone in the first 3 year term.

   I always regarded that as a threat.

   A pogrom awaits us as JK and his Cossacks ride to victory after the next election.

   The National Party does the bidding of the banks. No! Not him, the other ones.
5. mcflock 5

   13 December 2010 at 8:48 pm

   I actually agree with Key, very few of them would “starve to death”.

   Many would turn to crime to steal food – ISTR that this is becoming an issue now (so, “sensible sentencing” being what it is, even more poor people would spend the majority of their adult lives in gaol).
   Many would commit suicide.
   Many would allow conditions to worsen without seeing a doctor (too pricey), so they end up in the emergency department with more serious and more debilitating conditions – maybe what could have been medicated needs to be amputated, or leads to organ failure.
   And the infant mortality rate among poor [brown] people would become even worse.
   And the overall life expectancy for poor people would go backwards – and it’s not so hot now.

   But very few people would actually die of starvation- I’m sure that the forex trader in him regards them as statistically insignificant.

   Tosser.
   • Lanthanide 5.1

     13 December 2010 at 9:24 pm

     “But very few people would actually die of starvation”
     Yes, they’d die of many many other and varied reasons first.
     • mcflock 5.1.1

       13 December 2010 at 11:06 pm

       yes, that is why I listed some of them.
   • B 5.2

     14 December 2010 at 8:38 am

     very true. Its already happening even without cutting benefits -people are dying now of preventable diseases as a direct result of poverty-most are children and babies. What we need is benefit INCREASES, free medical care for children and affordable gd quality housing.

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4454458/Poverty-hits-childrens-health-levels
6. Andy (the other one) 6

   13 December 2010 at 8:49 pm

   I have to say, I don’t think JK is that stupid to know that canceling that amount of benefits would actually crash the economy as we know it. How many landlords and supermarkets is he willing to sacrifice for his paymasters?

   He would take the middle class out with the stroke of a pen, middle class nz are the landlords of the nation. Unfortunately in my line of work welfare is so embedded in our economy it is unlikely anyone can call an end to it. At best grandfathering out over time would be a better way to reduce costs.
7. dave brown 7

   13 December 2010 at 9:25 pm

   Meanwhile profits are clearly unsustainable, which is why the bosses are on welfare.
   So who’s going to turf them out of power then?
8. ok 8

   13 December 2010 at 9:33 pm

   “The second indication of what the PM might really be thinking comes from further feedback from the same meeting, picked up by myself on the Wellington grapevine last week.”

   any actual quotes from what was said?
   • Marty G 8.1

     13 December 2010 at 9:40 pm

     not everything is secretly taped, ok.
9. Jeremy Harris 9

   13 December 2010 at 9:47 pm

   $15,000,000,000 deficit to be announced tomorrow… $18,000,000,000 of benefit sending…

   JK’s plan to bring us back to surplus..?
   • bobo 9.1

     13 December 2010 at 9:53 pm

     sounds like the kind of thing key would say , the scarey thing is if nats only plan on getting one more term and push through unreversable changes without worrying about staying popular.
   • Colonial Viper 9.2

     13 December 2010 at 10:21 pm

     $9,100,000,000 given to the richest NZ’ers in tax cuts over the next 4 years.

     $1,770,000,000 given to Southern Canterbury Finance this year.
     • Jeremy Harris 9.2.1

       14 December 2010 at 12:39 am

       $9,100,000,000 retained by the richest NZ’ers in tax cuts over the next 4 years.

       $1,770,000,000 given to Southern Canterbury Finance this year.

       Fixed that for you there CV…
       • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1

         14 December 2010 at 12:45 am

         Yeah thanks Jeremy

         I have to say, for one so concerned about our deficit you seem very sanguine about the richest NZ’ers “retaining” more of the monies which would close that very same deficit, and then making the poorest NZ’ers pay for it with cuts to social services and benefits.

         At least the richest 2% of the population get to upgrade from their V6 Jag to their V8, something the commoners can all be grateful for.
       • Jeremy Harris 9.2.1.2

         14 December 2010 at 10:57 am

         I’ve stated before many, many times CV that I thought any tax cuts should have been for all NZers equally by introducing a tax free threshold, if somewhat stupidly, cutting taxes when running large deficits was to be done…

         What I was pointing out is the erroneous mindset that is the idea that the government has money of it’s own, that it then either gifts to the lower, middle or upper socio economic groups…

         All the country’s wealth ultimately is generated as surplus in the private sector…
         • Draco T Bastard 9.2.1.2.1

           14 December 2010 at 3:20 pm

           All the country’s wealth ultimately is generated as surplus in the private sector…

           Wrong. The countries wealth is it’s renewable resource base which belongs to everybody. Due to the vagaries of the capitalist ownership system and it’s propensity of taking the surplus from the workers we have far more of that wealth going to a few rather than to be equitably distributed. Progressive taxes try to fix this usurious practice but it doesn’t go far enough.
         • Jeremy Harris 9.2.1.2.2

           14 December 2010 at 6:49 pm

           You really are a nutter, all taxes come from the profits of private businesses and our SOE’s, so no I’m not wrong…

           The matter of our planet doesn’t magically turn itself into food and useable products and service…

           After progressing from a subsistence farming economy this transformation requires, firstly land but also a systems of money and property ownership, then capital acquired through saving and increases in productivity, then risk of capital and finally labour… This process is the creation of wealth, matter that sits idle represents potential future wealth…

           All other systems tried have been the failures of loony left wing nut jobs, tyrants and dictators…
           • SPC 9.2.1.2.2.1

             16 December 2010 at 3:58 pm

             Not all of the productive sector is owned privately.
10. Inventory2 10

    13 December 2010 at 9:56 pm

    If the quote attributed to John Key is for real, it’s a shocker.

    I’d venture to suggest that it’s a very big “If” ….
    • RedLogix 10.1

      13 December 2010 at 11:00 pm

      I’m inclined to agree…. without some corroborating evidence I struggle to think Key would either say such a thing in any kind of meeting or forum, nor go anywhere near implementing such a policy. It simply could not be done.

      And in believing Key could be so foolish you are guilty of underestimating him. Whatever Key has in mind it will be much more indirect than this.
      • just saying 10.1.1

        13 December 2010 at 11:57 pm

        RL I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Key has decided to eradicate welfare (outside super of course) this is just an indication of what he believes about welfare, and his complete lack of conscience or empathy. The benefit cuts and compliance measures that Key intends to introduce as one of his main election platforms will be brutal and it will be a material lesson to everyone about what will happen to anyone who doesn’t learn their place. I doubt it’s even about the money, we’ve seen how cavalier he can be about vast sums to the wealthy. I believe this is about dividing the working class and inciting hatred. The more fear and hatred he can whip up the better he will do at the polls.

        The more NZanders believe that it is the poor, the benes, the unions, school teachers etc. are the enemy, the more the more disempowered we are as a class and he is able to play on a kind of mass Stockholm syndrome in which we all fawn on and lick the boots of our real oppressors.

        I’m not expecting any significant opposition to his benefit policies. Labour will continue to dance to his tune, and announce slightly less vicious “reforms” to attempt to appeal to talkback land. They can’t seem to get their heads around the need to change the discourse rather than fitting themselves within the confines of the current one.

        It may too late to start communicating a new vision now to make a difference to the 2011 election, but Labour wont start to gain any real traction until it does IMO.
11. maui 11

    13 December 2010 at 10:23 pm

    More forex scams ..

    http://www.yourtradingroom.com/

    http://knowledgetoaction.co.uk/

    .. burgeoning in our part of the world.
12. Jenny 12

    13 December 2010 at 10:26 pm

    “If we cancelled welfare to 330,000 people currently on welfare, how many would starve to death? Bugger all.”

    And I wonder, Even if we put the top tax rate back up 90% as in the ’40s, how many of them would have to go out and get a job to pay the bills? Bugger all.
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      13 December 2010 at 10:45 pm

      Even if we put the top tax rate back up 90% as in the ’40s, how many of them would have to go out and get a job to pay the bills? Bugger all.

      United States, 1954-1963. Top income bracket was taxed at 91%. This income tax rate applied at around US$3M p.a. income, in today’s dollars. Quite generous really. Nothing you cannot afford on that much income.

      During these years the baby boomer generation was launched and a vast expansion of the US middle class occurred. US industry and technology powered ahead (strangely enough high income tax rates did not stop innovation in the economy). Ordinary workers could look forward to affording a new car of their own, a new TV of their own, etc.

      http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
      • Jeremy Harris 12.1.1

        14 December 2010 at 11:08 am

        You quote this all the time and it’s a red herring at best…

        Prey tell CV, exactly how much did federal government income as a percentage of GDP rise when these top tax rates were in effect..?

        Not at all…

        Well shock horror, you mean the most enterprising and productive in society spend a fortune on lawyers and accountants to keep their tax exposure the same..?

        http://mercatus.org/publication/reality-isnt-negotiable-government-cant-raise-more-19-taxes-long

        There goes your theory that society will be fixed and equal only if we massively raise top tax rates, it is in fact a make work scheme for tax lawyer and accountants, many of them in the lower socio-economic group you “care” so much about..? If introduced to NZ many productive people will bugger off to Aussie, those that stay will employ an army of people to reduce their taxes…

        This is the same all over the world and why government expenditure reduction is the most pressing issue in the West…
        • Pascal's bookie 12.1.1.1

          14 December 2010 at 7:36 pm

          That graph doesn’t prove what you claim. We would need to know what other taxation policies were in place. You seem to be using it to claim that changing the top income tax rate doesn’t change the amount of income tax people on that top rate pay. But for all we know that graph demonstrates that when you cut the top tax rate, the government collects more tax from the poor and middle class to make up the deficit, (perhaps through sales taxes or what have you).

          I also found this from the author:

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10334036

          …which also makes some simplistic claims about the gloriousness of supply side jesus and GW Bush’s 03 tax cuts. She claims that these tax cuts were just greta for growth and job growth in the US. I don’t think history has been kind to those claims…
        • Jenny 12.1.1.2

          14 December 2010 at 10:23 pm

          .

          Whoo hoo!

          “…..government expenditure reduction is the most pressing issue in the West…”

          Jeremy Harris

          (Except of course when it is expenditure to bail out failed corporates with billions of taxpayers dollars)

          Jeremy your disgusting philosophy of greed is showing, when you write admiringly of those you call “the most enterprising and productive in society, (who) spend a fortune on lawyers and accountants to keep their tax exposure the same..?”

          Most other people would call them criminal tax dodgers and undeserving parasites on society.

          All the Mercator Center graph tells me, is that we need to take a harder line with those sorts of people.

          Jeremy, a link to the Mercator Center website??

          You gotta be kidding.

          An organisation founded by someone called Rich Fink.

          An organisation almost totally funded by Koch Industries.

          An organisation linked to the, (also Koch funded), notorious global warming denying Cato Institute,

          An organisation that attacked, as onerous regulations such as a proposed Interior Department rule prohibiting snowmobiles in Rocky Mountain National Park.

          An organisation that lobbied against Transportation Department rules limiting truckers’ hours behind the wheel.

          An organisation that attacked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules limiting the amount of arsenic in drinking water.

          As an example of a loyal paid for creature, for advancing corporate interests, the Mercator Center would be hard to beat.
          • Jeremy Harris 12.1.1.2.1

            14 December 2010 at 11:21 pm

            Jenny, I have not, do not and never will support corporate bailouts… I’ve stated that the Nat government had to pay out SCF due to a stupid law passed by Labour and stupidly extended by National and because the government breaking it’s own laws is a precedent I don’t want to see, I wish no such law existed, I wish no banking bailouts had happened… I must say unlike many posters on this site who hate banking bailouts but would happily support subsidies (in many cases giving taxpayer money to the wealthy) in NZ companies that “develop NZ skills” or similar, i.e. the companies they approve of…

            I don’t have a philosophy of greed, I don’t own a car due in part to environmental concerns, I wear well worn clothes, I don’t overconsume, I give to charity… But I recognise that we as a society need to produce and innovate to cloth, house and feed the overwhelming majority in society and in my opinion nothing so far devised works better than a system of small government, with social and economic liberalism at it’s core… It isn’t perfect but neither is democracy and both are the best we’ve so far come up with, I won’t disagree with you that there are problems with our current monetary system I’d like to see changed…

            On the graph, apart from talking about how you don’t like the organisation, it’s funders you haven’t provided any empirical evidence or an alternate graph disproving it, just that you don’t like people who legally minimise their taxes, they are “parasites” in fact… I wonder how you’d react if I was disgusting enough to call beneficiaries “parasites” but you socialists are the moral ones, right..?
            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.2.1.1

              14 December 2010 at 11:26 pm

              Jenny, I have not, do not and never will support corporate bailouts…

              real capitalists and real politicians support corporate bailouts. A couple of trillion dollars worth.

              nothing so far devised works better than a system of small government, with social and economic liberalism at it’s core…

              No country in the world works like this which has not got entrenched suffering and poverty. The country does not exist.

              just that you don’t like people who legally minimise their taxes, they are “parasites” in fact…

              Well these people make life tougher on the ordinary working person who doesn’t have tax accountants restructuring their personal affairs. Too many of the very rich duck their responsibilities.

              Google pays less than 5% effective tax on their international profits. Wow.

              Great for their shareholders, less so for all the cops, teachers and street cleaners who have been laid off due to finance sector demanded deficit reduction activities.
            • felix 12.1.1.2.1.2

              14 December 2010 at 11:28 pm

              “…in my opinion nothing so far devised works better than a system of small government, with social and economic liberalism at it’s core”

              For example?

              edit CV beat me to it. You have to get up pretty early to catch CV out.
              • Colonial Viper …

                14 December 2010 at 11:44 pm

                😀 Hi Felix

                On another note, here are more indications that Bill and John will soon be in an election year with a horrendously weak economy. Labour, Goff, Cunliffe et al – be prepared with answers and plans that the electorate will get!

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10694263

                Business confidence plummets to decade-low

                Business confidence has plummeted to its lowest level in more than a decade and indications are there could be worse to come, according a survey of North Island businesses.

                The latest Auckland Chamber of Commerce survey of 1000 Auckland businesses shows just 18 per cent in the region expect business conditions to improve in the next six months and outside of Auckland, in drought stricken Northland, sentiment is even weaker.

                It is the second quarter that confidence has fallen to a level lower than it has been in more than a decade and represents a considerable drop from June results
                …

                Chamber chief executive Michael Barnett said the traditional spring surge in optimism had failed to materialise, and 2011 would spell the end for some businesses who were only now “hanging on by the skin of their teeth”.

                Bill and John have no plan. This NAT Government is a long list of missed opportunities, enriching the few while encumbering the many.
            • Jeremy Harris 12.1.1.2.1.3

              14 December 2010 at 11:45 pm

              It’s the same merry go round guys – I point out the economic theories, and their application in countries today and in the past that I think provide an excellent examples, you guys say they don’t and that they are perfect examples of the rich exploiting the poor, I say that average living standards increased many times over, you guys say…., I say….., etc, etc…

              Then KJT pops up and asks me to move to Somalia…

              Followed by DTB saying I’m a RWNJ and we should make our own TVs out of faeces…

              Closely followed by Robert Atack saying I’m in complete denial about oil and a coward and I should stock 10 years of water in my bomb shelter and call him on his cell if I dare…

              Finally lprent, calls me a ignorant dickhead who is obviously incorrect because he considered my point once 30 years ago and dismissed it, making it, of course, undisputably, universally, incorrect…

              I don’t really have the energy to have the same conversation for the upteenth time, I wanted to respond to Jenny’s high handed, moralistic accusations…
              • Colonial Viper …

                14 December 2010 at 11:47 pm

                Jeremy, its interesting we seem to be getting each another. BTW impressed that you go out of your way to minimise motor vehicle use. I need to make more efforts in that regard, but at the moment its hard to find alternatives which work for where/when I need to go.
                • Jeremy Harris …

                  15 December 2010 at 12:55 am

                  Yeah, most of our debates end in agreements to disagree or peter out rather than namecalling these days – what a let down…

                  Well living off the busiest bus route in NZ and being a fan of PT helps… Even with these advantages it is a hamper, I might buy a very small engined car or scooter next year… I also do it in part to save money to invest, I may consume more later when I have a more solid investment base, I don’t know…

                  I don’t think I would use as much PT if I lived in Dunedin – I wouldn’t worry about it, acrs are a problem in Auckland due largely to particulate and population growth/idiot traffic engineers, which I don’t think (guessing) is that much of a problem in Dunners…
              • felix …

                15 December 2010 at 12:04 am

                “I point out the economic theories, and their application in countries today and in the past that I think provide an excellent examples…”

                Sorry Jeremy I must’ve missed that. Is there somewhere you can point to where you’ve had this discussion before so I can get an idea of what you’re talking about without you having to type it all again?
                • Jeremy Harris …

                  15 December 2010 at 1:00 am

                  Try searching this site for: “KJT somalia” or “Jeremy Harris somalia”

                  I had a debate with KJT over 20 – 30 posts a month or so ago on this very thing and one or two months before that on Red Alert with a guy called Reds Under The Beds, try searching, “Jeremy Harris UK, Japan, US, capitalism” or similar…

                  If you can find them, I’m sure you’ll feel the urge to call me a RWNJ idiot and point out all the various ways I’m wrong, so just link here and I’ll reply if you want…

                  Cheers
              • KJT …

                15 December 2010 at 7:07 am

                Of course.
                Somalia is the perfect example of your ideal of the application of unfettered capitalism, laziass faire economics and small Government.
                Funny that most of the people who advocate no taxes and small Government chose to live in countries that have social cohesion because of the opposite.
                • Jeremy Harris …

                  15 December 2010 at 8:46 am

                  As I’ve pointed out to you many, many times before KJT but you are too dim to grasp, “small government liberals” are not “no government liberals”, it is amazing that you cannot grasp this simple but stark difference…

                  The rule of law, functioning courts, law enforcement, a civil military are all essential to defend rights and property… Not much of this in Somalia… Otherwise people descend into chaos defending their own property…

                  What part don’t you understand..? What part would you like me to explain in small words..?

                  It like pulling bloody teeth…
                  • KJT …

                    15 December 2010 at 12:17 pm

                    “The rule of law, functioning courts, law enforcement,”. You would charge ordinary people taxes to protect YOUR property rights, but you do not believe in taxes and laws so ordinary working people get a fair share. And in your dog eat dog system those who cannot work or support themselves are supposed to quietly starve.

                    Small Government to reduce your share of the cost of living in society.

                    Not really much different from Somalia except the rich pay for their own armies.

                    Get it!
                    • Jeremy Harris …

                      15 December 2010 at 1:28 pm

                      Absolutely incorrect KJT…

                      Read slowly and calmly… Arisostle once said,

                      A society grows great, when old men plant trees whose shade they will never sit under

                      The difference between me and you is I think that 95% of the people in society are decent, understand that this principle is a great thing and will plant trees in their dotterage willingly… In this analogy you believe that people are scumbags and must be forced to plant trees with a government gun to their head… Your beliefs are immoral… The use of force is not justifiable, whether physical, emotionally, financially, it is moral to reduce force…

                      I have faith that if taxes were reduced to 5% of GDP and our lives were our own – as long as we didn’t adversely affect others, than the growth in wealth, prosperity, responsibility and creativity would mean that the overwhelming majority of people would be far better off than currently and I have faith that this say 80% of the population would willingly give to NGOs to help the less fortunate…

                      My motivation isn’t solely monetary, of course I’d like to pay less tax – most people would, but my primary motivation is morality and what works in reality…
                    • KJT …

                      15 December 2010 at 1:48 pm

                      “My motivation isn’t solely monetary, of course I’d like to pay less tax – most people would, but my primary motivation is morality and what works in reality”.

                      LOL.

                      You have no idea of what works in reality.

                      Mind you, you have a lot of growing up to do yet. You may get some brains as you mature and see the contradictions in your ideas.

                      Unlike you, I have no problem with paying my fair share of tax to live in a decent and civilised society.

                      We have seen in the past what societies are like when they depend on the charity and goodwill of the rich. Victorian work houses anyone?

                      I believe in the honesty and morality of 95% of the population. Unfortunately in our world it is not usually the honest or moral who accumulate wealth.
                    • Jeremy Harris …

                      15 December 2010 at 2:26 pm

                      Suprious, unreasoned cliche’s…

                      As usual we’ll have to end in disagreement…
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    15 December 2010 at 4:25 pm

                    It seems Jeremy that the guts of the conversations do seem to replay – and that you have the pattern down pat. Discussions around the most appropriate mix of roles for the private sector and the public sector might be a fruitful way ahead.

                    I have no doubt that property and life need to be defended from lawlessness.

                    Now on the essentials of life – water, food, shelter. Where do you stand on that? An AK 47 bullet might ends someone’s life very quickly. But a lack of these essentials will do the exact same thing – albeit spread over a slightly longer period, and the end my come through chronic disease not traumatic blood loss from a bullet wound.

                    The other thing is participation in society. Do we want all citizens to have a high degree of participation in society? Is that a good value to hold or aspire to?
                    • Jeremy Harris …

                      15 December 2010 at 7:10 pm

                      Now on the essentials of life – water, food, shelter. Where do you stand on that?

                      Suprisingly I’m for them…

                      The other thing is participation in society. Do we want all citizens to have a high degree of participation in society? Is that a good value to hold or aspire to?

                      Yes of course, but as in almost all things it should be voluntary, if people want to just work their 8 hours go home and watch TV, I see no reason not allow them to do so…
                  • KJT …

                    15 December 2010 at 10:24 pm

                    Jeremy. Just some food for thought. What happened in Ireland when the poor depended on the philanthropy of the rich.

                    http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
                    • Jeremy Harris …

                      15 December 2010 at 11:25 pm

                      Really…? That’s the best you can find..? A sole reference from 1729..?

                      I mean honestly, how much excess production do you think there was before the industrial revolution..? How many multiple times have living standards doubled since then..?

                      It’d be funny if it wasn’t about such a serious subject…
                    • KJT …

                      16 December 2010 at 6:39 am

                      Jeremy. In your position that taxation is an act of force. Can’t you see the contradiction. You think some taxation is OK for police and army to protect your property, but you do not agree with taxation to ensure that people who do not have jobs (To keep an efficient/low paid labour market for capitalism to work) do not starve.

                      In what way is your position different from the rich in 1729?

                      I would agree with you about Government regulation when it is bought by corporates to help them keep their market position. Including rules for banks which exclude new co-operatives in banking. but what about the withdrawal of the Glass Steagal act in the USA which was a major cause of their present problems.

                      A think the markets are the best distribution system on a micro scale for things where a genuine competitive market can exist.
                      Their needs to be a path for entrepreuners who are not already rich to start.Otherwise the degree of competition continually reduces.

                      .
                      But. History has proved that without democratic regulation the dishonest, the uncaring, the sociopaths or those who can afford the most guns always get to the top. NACT party members and the business round table who do not care if 30 000 people starve so long as their taxes are reduced.

                      In NZ with an 83% increase in productivity, wages have only risen 15%. Less if you consider the CPI is skewed towards luxury items the ordinary wage earner does not buy.
                      Without democracy the wealthiest always gerrymander the laws to make themselves better off.
13. Deadly_NZ 13

    13 December 2010 at 11:03 pm

    Has anyone seen the Teflon john on TV tonight ????

    He cant understand why we are all not falling over ourselves in gratitude for all the money we got in the tax cuts and how we are dreaming if they dont let us spend and also save ….

    yeah right I got about $2.50

    in that my groceries went up by about 20.00
    petrol is still climbing
    Acc went up so the rego is now about 80 bucks a year extra
    Plus the rest of the GST

    I am sorry john I forgot to be grateful for the fact that I Cannot even buy my partner a b/day pres or pay the doc’s bill cos she having a hard pregnancy..

    How ungrateful am i?? Well i may even vote for your old nemesis winston!!!!
    • Armchair Critic 13.1

      13 December 2010 at 11:07 pm

      Here it is on Stuff
      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4454212/No-benefit-from-tax-cuts-voters-say
    • mcflock 13.2

      13 December 2010 at 11:10 pm

      He can’t understand it because he did quite well out of the tax cuts, and can’t figure out why not everyone is as relaxed about it as he is
    • Jenny 13.3

      14 December 2010 at 10:39 pm

      .

      “How ungrateful am i?? Well i may even vote for your old nemesis winston!!!!”

      Deadly_NZ

      Probably not a good move Deadly, As Winston is guaranteed to back the Nats.

      Why?

      Because Winnie would never accept a coalition government that had the Greens in it.

      Labour on present polling would not have the numbers to form a government with only NZ First as partner. (The same is true for a sole Greens coalition partner.)

      Winnie will not want to be in opposition, so he will inevitably go with Key and the Nats. (Particularly if he is offered a very juicy shiny bauble.)
14. SHG 14

    13 December 2010 at 11:58 pm

    A forecast attributed to Polish scientists of the coldest European winter in 1,000 years has drawn plenty of media attention recently

    Among other comments made to the church leaders that day, John Key is reported to have said, “If we cancelled welfare to 330,000 people currently on welfare, how many would starve to death? Bugger all.”

    Spot the difference!
15. sean14 15

    14 December 2010 at 8:57 am

    but some intrepid reporter needs to follow up and see if this quote can be verified.

    But you’ll bravely run the “quote” in the meantime, R0B. Will you alter this post if no verification is forthcoming?
    • r0b 15.1

      14 December 2010 at 9:33 am

      Is this post in any way unfair sean14? What’s your problem?
    • SHG 15.2

      14 December 2010 at 12:25 pm

      I heard that John Key actually said “I think paedophiles and terrorists are really great”. Until I see evidence to the contrary, it must be true.
      • Pascal's bookie 15.2.1

        14 December 2010 at 12:34 pm

        I’ll just take your word for it then.
        • Colonial Viper 15.2.1.1

          14 December 2010 at 10:27 pm

          yeah seems consistent.
16. Deadly_NZ 16

    15 December 2010 at 5:46 pm

    Yeah good point Winnie was a bad choice. So Green party give em enough seats in the house the greens hopefully will come up witth something other than the ‘smacking’ law..

    better education
    Climate change
    Alternative fuels
    legalisation of marijuana
    make tobacco illegal
    do to alcohol what the nats did to tobacco

    then the tax take on marijuana will cover what they lose in tobacco

    and I am in my 50’s an ex smoker ex heavy drinker
    marijuana smoker ,thinker

    thats me

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 13 December 2010 at 6:44 am
2. Draco T Bastard: posted on 13 December 2010 at 7:00 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS