Lefties on fire

Written By: - Date published: 6:30 am, July 17th, 2017 - 95 comments
Categories: benefits, greens, Metiria Turei, social media lolz, twitter, welfare - Tags: ,

The Greens did some very cool stuff yesterday. Then leftie twitter burned,

It took a while for the RW trolling to start. David Seymour put his hand up especially high. Brave seeing as how he took a drubbing during the week on ACT’s stance on eugenics (poor people aren’t allow to have babies).

This from three days ago, what it’s all about,

95 comments on “Lefties on fire”

  1. Sanctuary 1

    Great stuff from the Greens. They’ve shifted the welfare debate at a vital moment out from the election. The bottom line is the pettifogging intrusiveness of welfare as punishment means we all know someone who has been paid under the table, taken in flatmates, had a foreign student stay, grown a bit of pot or otherwise been criminalised while on social security. Metiria Turei has forced some honesty into the debate, and taken away the ability of the right to use meally mouthed hypocrisy and smug judgementalism. My prediction is the right use someone likes Slater will try and organise a private prosecution, he is a desperately stupid man and desperate for attention – I hear no one visits his site anymore – so he’ll preen and bask in the publicity while the Nats snigger at him for taking all the flak.

    To my mind, this policy is the first NZ fruit of Corbyn/Sanders phenomena – the Overton window has been pulled left and opened up ground for the right to be outflanked on the left at lightening speed.

    This is how the Labour-Green co-operation might look like – the Greens propose radical ideas as stalking horses for what is possible, and that can at least partially translate to policy.

    Meanwhile, Winston Peters I think is already overplaying his hand and showing his age – referendums everywhere! Referendums galore! He wants one on the size of parliament? Really?? The 1990s called and it wants it’s issues back.

    Funnily enough, I have voted Labour all my life but this election I was 20% toying with NZ First. Peter’s carry on this past few days reminded me why you should never vote for him.

    • RedLogix 1.1

      And I’m impressed with Turei’s honesty on this. Ignore the blowhards demanding she should pay it back; what most people despise more than lies is hypocrisy and on this Turei has done the right thing. A lot of people will notice.

      I’ve been critical of a left wing landscape that for years has been mired in shades of beige; this is the first flash of colour I’ve seen for a long time.

    • Norfolk Traveller 1.2

      I agree it is healthy that the welfare debate now has a more meaningful contrast than Labour offer. As to your comments on Peter’s…what is wrong with revisiting issues from the 1990’s? Debating the number of MP’s and the ongoing existence of the Maori seats is healthy.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1

        “healthy”

        Yeah, because the increased incidence of preventable housing-related diseases can totes be solved by disenfranchising tangata whenua and reducing the number of MPs.

        No wait, your useless bias drags everyone down and it’s well past time you demonstrated some personal responsibility for your beliefs.

        • Norfolk Traveller 1.2.1.1

          “disenfranchising tangata whenua”
          You mean Maori can’t vote on the general roll?

          “Yeah, ”
          Oh so you only want issues debated where you control the narrative??

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1

            🙄

            If I can control your narrative you must a pretty weak grasp of it. Oh, right.

            • Norfolk Traveller 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Oh it’s not my narrative. It’s the entire narrative around the issue. You only like democracy when it suits you.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                Newsflash, I don’t “like” democracy at all. It remains the least shit method by which good decisions can be made, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

                One of the ways good decisions are made is that when you set out your barrow of mouldy rat infested leftovers, I’m allowed to shop elsewhere.

                • Norfolk Traveller

                  Democracy is generally a very good method by which the will of the people is carried out in a stable society. Democracies survive all manner of challenges intact. But your distaste for it isn’t surprising.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    I should hope not: it’s hardly an original observation.

                    Since you seem to be struggling with my point: I’ll spell it out. Democracy involves the contest of ideas. Part of that contest involves bullshit detection. It’s a shitty job and someone has to do it.

                    Hi, I’m an anonymous bloke. I’ll be your bullshit detector, or more accurately, when you parrot stale bullshit I’ll notice. And say so. With references.

  2. Sanctuary 2

    Wow, Farrar has had a complete melt down, practically demanding she be driven into penury for her crime. It can’t be a focus grouped response, it is too soon. It has to be his personal opinion

    He is such a sneering, nasty, smug asshole.

    • Incognito 2.1

      Probably couldn’t sleep last night because of the gross injustice & unfairness of taking money that she was not entitled to and not because she’s the co-leader of the Greens but because it made so much sense and it was the right human thing to do under the circumstances.

      He should watch his blood pressure in the coming few weeks.

      • Paul Campbell 2.1.1

        yeah, perish the thought of what will happen when he finds out about English’s double dipping

    • Heather Grimwood 2.2

      to Sanctuary at 2 : What Farrar and cohorts should do is read Robert Hughes’ ‘The Fatal Shore’ and then look in a mirror.

    • Ffloyd 2.3

      You flatter him Sanctuary.

    • Norfolk Traveller 2.4

      Farrar also posted a piece from the National Review about the negative impact of excessive shifts in the minimum wage in Seattle.
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449025/seattle-minimum-wage-hike-hurts-low-wage-workers-study-obvious-economic-result-left
      And yet virtually all posts here are about Metiria.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1

        You mean the study that excludes 40% of Seattle’s workforce? The one with “Data limitations and methodological problems bias” .

        Why do you uncritically swallow the crap Farrar spoonfeeds you?

        • Norfolk Traveller 2.4.1.1

          Are you suggesting studies of this nature must include the entire workforce? The study was both robust and credible.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.4.1.1.1

            Yes dear.

            The employment responses estimated by the authors are well outside the bounds of most published research, and indeed all of the research cited by the authors implies much smaller and even no employment changes in response to wage increases similar to those experienced so far in Seattle. After accounting for Seattle’s much higher wage structure, the increase of the minimum wage to $13.00 in the city is within the range of increases that other research has found to have had little to no effect on employment.

            The study implausibly finds employment changes due to the minimum wage in parts of the labor market where there should have be none. The study’s own estimates inaccurately imply the minimum wage caused large gains in the number of jobs paying above $19.00 per hour and in the number of hours worked in those jobs—even though those jobs are well above the wage range where the $13.00 minimum wage should be having measurable effects. These spurious results strongly suggest that the study’s methodology fails to account properly for the booming Seattle labor market during the period being studied—a labor market that has been shifting employment from lower-paid to higher-paid jobs.

            The study excludes an important group of workers, representing roughly 40 percent of the workforce: those working for employers with businesses in multiple locations. By omitting all multi-location businesses, such as chains, in Seattle, the authors bias their results toward showing job loss if there has been a shift in employment from small, single-location establishments toward larger firms with multiple locations.

            Keep believing it very hard, please. I could use a laugh.

            • Norfolk Traveller 2.4.1.1.1.1

              Actually the bigger laugh is you quoting from the EPI, which is significantly funded by labour unions, and was for years funded by the tobacco institute.
              Their bias is well documented, and their credibility zero.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                I note your failure to rebut any of the arguments they cite, will you also shoot this messenger?

                the study’s methodology has been criticized for its failings. The biggest is that it excludes businesses with more than one location. In other words, no McDonald’s or other fast-food restaurant chains were included. Nor was Wal-Mart, or any of the countless other well-known retail and restaurant chains.

                That is quite a significant oversight: Michael Reich of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed the impact of the methodology used. He notes that the UofW report excludes “48 percent of Seattle’s low-paid workforce out of their study.”

                Oh, and while we’re discussing bias, Jacob Vigdor “may not be the most objective person for assessing the impact of Seattle’s minimum wage laws.”

                • Norfolk Traveller

                  You didn’t rebutt the original article, just posted an opinion piece from a source with a known bias, funded by unions and the tobacco lobby. Well done.
                  BTW, Bloomberg is news source…here’s another http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    I note your failure to address any of the substantive arguments raised thus far. Shooting the messenger is the best you can do.

                    Not only that, you advanced an ad hominem argument about the EPI – based on their bias – before checking the biases of your brand new Farrar-endorsed guru that you just heard of yesterday.

                    Get a clue, n00b. Read some David Card.

                    Fail. Sad. Yawn.

                    • Norfolk Traveller

                      You didn’t address any of the substantive points in the original study. Instead you quoted a discredited organisation with institutional bias. Nice.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Pointing out that a study that purports to illustrate something about low-waged workers, but doesn’t include people who work for McDonalds, Walmart etc, isn’t a substantive response in Norfolk?

  3. gsays 3

    The nats can’t say a thing about metiria and claiming from winz because debarclay and sir key.

    • mauī 3.1

      I’m sure the NZ Tax payer’s Union will be after Toddy and Keyyey any moment now.. Yep, any moment now.

    • There’s not just the debarclay to consider. If they complain about Meyt, someone is going to mention Bill English’s double dipping on the housing allowance again. And boy does “I told a slight lie so I could feed my kid and get training for a job” sound more sympathetic than “I was already rich and pretended I didn’t really live in Wellington to get extra money.”

  4. Carolyn_nth 4

    “Within the @NZGreens, socialism has won out over environmentalism. @NZNationalParty needs to rule out working with them.”

    Yay! Socialism is a winner!

    But

    Within the @NZGreens, socialism plus sustainable environment has won out. @NZNationalParty needs to rule out working with them.

    FIFY

  5. James 5

    Reading another forum (stuff comments). There are a lot of people who think she should either be made to pay it back or be held to account for her fraud.

    • Craig H 5.1

      Having announced it to the world, paying it back would be a reasonable plan. Doing so voluntarily would be preferable to waiting for an investigation IMO since it would shut down the squealing about fraud.

      Legitimate point, however, that many people cheat on their taxes for similar reasons,and that probably includes a few politicians.

      • Carolyn_nth 5.1.1

        Paying it back would set a bad precedent. If people are rorting the benefit system, because the provisions are inadequate, the provisions need to be improved.

          • Carolyn_nth 5.1.1.1.1

            IMO, the best way Turei can pay back Kiwis and the country, is to help improve the social security system for those in need now and in the future, – and to change the narrative that demonises the poor.

            It’s Turei’s personal decision re-making a donation to WINZ.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.1

              I doubt she can make a donation to WINZ. The only way to pay it back would be if WINZ did a formal assessment on what was owed (Turei won’t know what the amount is). I haven’t seen enough detail on what Turei did, but it’s not going to be a surprise if this fits in the discretionary realm of WINZ and they decide to do nothing. Technically it’s an issue between WINZ and her, and nothing to do with the rest of the country unless Turei decides to share about it, or it becomes a prosecution matter.

              The more I see this play out the more I see this as an exceptionally smart move on Turei’s part. Brave too. She’s putting herself on the line so that she can demonstrate that this happens a lot, it’s not about the deficiency of beneficiaries, and that NZ needs to make a choice about whether it wants to be a punitive society or a forgiving and caring one. I agree this is all about changing the narrative and whichever way this goes now, she’s righteous. Given that National haven’t got a clue on that, I suspect they’ll do some stupid shit that will work in the left’s favour.

              • Karen

                +1 Weka

              • RedLogix

                + 1

                and that NZ needs to make a choice about whether it wants to be a punitive society or a forgiving and caring one.

                And in tough times that tends to be a tough choice.

                • We don’t have tough times in this country. We only have the illusion of them brought about by a delusional financial system.

                  We can feed and clothe an house everyone here but we’re choosing not to so a few people can be rich.

              • Loop

                Like get poor paula to out herself from back in the day so they can share the mantel of righteousness? Not going to hold my breath, still haven’t quite got rid of the blue tinge from waiting for the law to follow up double dipping polys, using credit cards for personal use, using political place of privilege to influence offshore business deals for spouse, using political privilege to access and release personal files, knowingly cover illegal recordings and use political privilege to access tax-payer $$ as hush money, making illegal recordings, using political privilege to illegally spy on EnZed citizens then use SAS in an anti-terrorism type of operation on a private residence where there in no reported terrorists or use of weapons, assault on a female waitress x2. The list goes on. But as it has been pointed out , the law only to keep the surfs in line.

        • Norfolk Traveller 5.1.1.2

          “If people are rorting the benefit system, because the provisions are inadequate, the provisions need to be improved.”
          That’s a foolish argument. Many people were/able to live on current welfare provisions. And would support someone who believes they are underpaid committing fraud against their employer?

          • Matthew Whitehead 5.1.1.2.1

            By what means did you come to the conclusion that benefit payments are categorically adequate? Most people who do okay on benefits are people who were already pretty wealthy before they needed to go onto the safety net, so are relying on investments they made before going onto a benefit to get by, so I hope you’re not just talking to people who, say, were briefly unemployed for a couple of months but already owned their own home.

            What you are failing to get is that this is a discussion about existing class war that is being lost by those who are in poverty, and how we need to push back at it. The state is not the “employer” of beneficiaries, the relationship should be more like a parent helping them out either to get back on their feet or because they literally cannot work in paid employment, either permanently or because of current health circumstances.

            A system where you are literally encouraging people to lie, to cheat, or to criminally supplement their income in order to have enough to live, (and yes, those are choices some people face) is simply not a fair system.

            • Norfolk Traveller 5.1.1.2.1.1

              “By what means did you come to the conclusion that benefit payments are categorically adequate?”
              By what means did you come to the conclusion I claimed that?
              Here’s what I actually said:
              “Many people were/able to live on current welfare provisions. ”

              “Most people who do okay on benefits are people who were already pretty wealthy before they needed to go onto the safety net,”
              What sort of benefits are you referring to? People with significant wealth are unlikely to qualify for welfare benefits to begin with.

              “The state is not the “employer” of beneficiaries,”
              My comment was in response to the claim that it is ok to steal if you think you are not getting what you are entitled to. My comparison to paid work is very apt.

              “the relationship should be more like a parent helping them out either to get back on their feet”
              I agree. And that is a complex relationship that requires a motivated ‘child’. An unconditional benefit for life, which seems to be at the heart of the Greens proposal, is a recipe for welfare dependency.

              “A system where you are literally encouraging people to lie, to cheat, or to criminally supplement their income in order to have enough to live, ”
              I simply do not accept that is the case in NZ. There are people in dire need in our country, but current welfare support levels are higher than they were 10 years ago, so money is clearly not the issue.

      • james 5.1.2

        Paying it back does not ‘shut it down’ – she committed fraud – and people will have a view on that one way or the other.

        • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.1

          Create a system people can’t live in and bitch when they innovate. The Right – utterly worthless hypocrites since they regrew from severed tentacles.

          • james 5.1.2.1.1

            Theft = “innovate” to Stuart.

            • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.1.1.1

              No – that’s your crowd – the inventors of ‘blind’ trusts and a thousand other species of tax evasion.

              Your faux moral outrage would play better if you: a) were moral & b) were ever anything but outraged.

              Must be tiring.

              • james

                You know that a blind trust isnt tax evasion right?

                Just as a starter.

                • Stuart Munro

                  Key’s was.

                • Loop

                  “You know that a blind trust isn’t tax evasion right?”
                  Correct. But…..
                  The mass exodus of 8 thousand of 11 thousand trust owners with the projected law change to identify trust owners would indicate there is some illegal activity at the least wouldn’t you think?

            • garibaldi 5.1.2.1.1.2

              Tax evasion = theft James, and that is something the rich excel at ,and by $billions every year.

              • james

                I agree tax evasion is theft – but not if its within the rules – then its tax minimization and is perfectly legal and appropiate.

                I think you confuse the two.

                • Except for the fact that about $7 billion per year is actually tax evasion.

                • Craig H

                  I don’t confuse evasion and legal minimisation – I used to work for Inland Revenue, and there are thousands of examples of people failing to declare income every day. Capital gains is a big one, but there are small businesses all over the country with things like company cars which the owners use as personal cars without personal use adjustments or FBT, to name a common example.

                • This is the values divergence- for you the relevant fact is whether it was done legally. For us, the relevant fact is whether it’s moral. Moral laws are what we should base our national laws on, not the other way around.

                  We look at say, a business like Vodafone or Facebook, who are legally but immorally evading taxes so that we’re forced into these political discussions about “do we have enough money to fund a decent safety net that doesn’t judge people unnecessarily?” and think that yes, this is clearly a case of something where the law needs to be changed. We look at what Meyt did and say, yes, I suppose it was wrong, but in the context of a broader class war, she was, to extend the metaphor, a civilian casualty, not a combatant, and doesn’t really deserve to be judged. (and sure, she’ll pay it back if WINZ assesses what she owes- I don’t see how that’s even in question)

                  A law that forces people into poverty when we have enough resources in our society for them to live a decent life is a categorically unjust law.

        • Robert Guyton 5.1.2.2

          We are all keeping Bill English and his housing allowance in mind here, aren’t we? He did that so-called double-dipping while he was an MP, didn’t he? It involved very large sums of money, didn’t it? Bill was forced to own up to his “mistake” wasn’t he?
          Metiria, was she an MP at the time she was relying on WINZ for support?
          Metiria volunteered the information about her historical action, didn’t she?

          These two stories speak volumes about the two ideologies, about the two parties and about the two ‘tribes’ of supporters.

          • james 5.1.2.2.1

            It really does.

            One made an error based off incorrect advise provided from ministerial services. and paid it back.

            The other knowingly lied and committed fraud and never paid it back.

            • Robert Guyton 5.1.2.2.1.1

              The Treasury-trained Minister Of Finance “misunderstood” the situation with his claim to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars?
              You are deluded, James. And seemingly unaware – weka calles it “lacking in social intelligence” and weka’s pretty smart (lots of social intelligence).
              Regarding Metiria, my social intelligence had me smiling at her revelation, as I felt the power in what she has done. I know you can’t feel it, James (see “social intelligence, above).

              • james

                As normal – one of us is wrong – I guess we will find out at the end of september.

                • Stuart Munro

                  A million votes will not make an immoral position moral, James or a hundred million for that matter.

                  There is more to democracy than elections.

                  One of Montesquieu’s fundamental definitions of democracy is as a society where people do not live in fear. NZ has become increasingly despotic to its poor over the last three decades, yet this has not produced the promised prosperity, indeed our people are dying like flies.

                  There must be fundamental changes.

                  • Loop

                    I agree with you on every point you make here Stuart.
                    As far as “NZ has become increasingly despotic to its poor over the last three decades”, sadly it was a labour Govt that started this downward slide.
                    Is it time to get back to the the societal values and morals of pre-rogernomics days both major parties seem to have adhered to over the aforementioned 3 decades?
                    The call of the day from this era was “watch for reds under the bed”. We have since invited them in to bed with us, another Labour policy.
                    We have also called for the public to spy on and report our beneficiary dependent neighbours if we suspect wrong-doing. The TV ads at the time may have been better utilised to “better” the lot of the beneficiaries rather than the encouraging of spying on friends, family and neighbours. This has only caused a distrust in society which in turn can cause society to become insular. This may be what the politcal agender is, divide and conquer.
                    Taxing the rich more fairly rather than relying on ‘the trickle-down” effect would also have helped society.

                • greywarshark

                  James
                  You have no concept of self then, you decide everything by seeing if you are in the majority and going along with them.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.2.1.2

              One made an error based off incorrect advise provided from ministerial services.

              Do you have a copy of this advise?

              The other knowingly lied and committed fraud and never paid it back.

              Lawful Stupid would seem to describe you and many other RWNJs quite accurately.

            • The Fairy Godmother 5.1.2.2.1.3

              One was in a position of wealth and power at the time. The other was in a position of powerlessness and poverty. This is the big difference.

              • adam

                Don’t use logic The Fairy Godmother, that might make his brain explode. I’m not cleaning it up.

                Plus, like any good rwnj, he sees power differentials – as a left wing conspiracy.

                • The Fairy Godmother

                  Sorry Adam, but perhaps we could bag it all up and send it down to Robert Guyton to use as fertilizer. Afterall a rwnj brain must be full of shit.

                  • Remember those little white paper bags that lollies from the dairy used to be dispensed in?
                    One of those would contain the matter being discussed.
                    In any case, the pulp would be too bitter for the soil down here, though I’ve a shed door from which the paint needs to be stripped…

            • AB 5.1.2.2.1.4

              One was on a 250k annual salary, his wife was a GP most likely also earning a good income, and he still took money he didn’t need. And almost certainly he knew or suspected that it was against the intention/spirit of the law.
              The other was trying to keep her kid and herself fed, housed and warm.

              Your narrow legalism yet again exposes your moral bankruptcy.

        • Jeremy 5.1.2.3

          So quite similar to Bill English’s fraud then?

        • Craig H 5.1.2.4

          Maybe not completely, but it will minimise the negative impact.

      • McFlock 5.1.3

        Paying it back out of principle (rather than heading off the collectors) would just legitimise the fact that beneficiaries are underpaid to the point of being forced into petty crime.

        • In Vino 5.1.3.1

          And from what I have read elsewhere tonight, it appears that Double-Dipton didn’t pay it all back. He paid only half of it back. Well, James? Half of what Double-Dipton received would be lot more than Tetiria ever received. Any expression of outraged righteousness coming up here?

    • Cinny 5.2

      Reading the comments via Stuff about Todd Barclay, there are many angry people that feel he should not be collecting a salary paid for by us the taxpayer while he is hiding out, avoiding media and being investigated by the police.

      The truth has no agenda, Meti was honest with her past and is more than happy to front up and answer police questions if there is an issue. And Todd prefers to not answer police questions, and as a result the police investigation about his actions has been reopened.

      Comments about Barclays dishonesty via Stuff….

      “How does a party so strong on accusing beneficiaries as being work shy justify allowing one of their own to behave in this manner. There are beneficiaries in front of courts for lesser taking from the system lesser amounts than Barclay will take from the system as it appears he intends. Just makes a mockery of the system and the words of National.”

      “If Bill English felt conscience-bound to disclose possible law-breaking in his statement to the police, even though he had no legal obligation to make a statement, then why is he now denying any knowledge to what Barclay did? Why did he give conflicting public statements about this crisis and now refused to say more when being questioned in the House? Hasn’t he got a responsibility to the NZ tax payers as the PM to tell them the truth? ”

      “Ok I get that the Nats dont want a by-election and probably none of us do. But it really sticks in the craw that he gets to keep collecting that salary. If he has any moral fibre at all he would donate that salary to charity. He might have a future somewhere in NZ if he did but at the moment not a chance, he’ll always be the little upstart who robbed us blind and got away scot free. And we have memories like elephants!”

      • Loop 5.2.1

        “If Bill English felt conscience-bound to disclose possible law-breaking in his statement to the police, even though he had no legal obligation to make a statement, then why is he now denying any knowledge to what Barclay did?”

        Would he not have a legal obligation to make a statement if he was asked directly?

        Is it not perverting the course of justice if he doesn’t disclose lawbreaking?

        If there was no law broken, why the hush money?

    • weka 5.3

      I think Turei has already said she’d pay it back. Happy now?

  6. Cinny 6

    National are constantly bragging in parliament that they are the first government in something like 25 years to increase benefits.

    Yet when another party proposes to increase benefits the right wing rage starts. Ironic really.

    I’m extremely proud of Meti and the Greens for their policy. So proud of her for her honesty, and for finding a way to help other people that are in a similar situation to Meti was. Meti your speech was real, honest and extremely moving. Thank you.

    It’s no childs fault that their parent is on the DPB, but they are the ones who suffer in the end. Greens want to put an end to suffering and poverty, how could anyone condemn them for that?

  7. ianmac 7

    Paula Bennett on Morning Report. She didn’t

    “I didn’t deliberately lie,” to Welfare.
    Listen from 56 seconds.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201851309

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201851309/deputy-pm-paula-bennett-reacts-to-turei-benefit-fraud-admission

    [page link added – weka]

  8. weka 8

    Anyone who thinks that the welfare system in NZ is working well*, needs to read this thread by a legally blind woman who’s caught in the poverty trap created by WINZ, especially the Bennett reforms.

    https://twitter.com/PINKYFANG/status/886722272643305472

    *of course many of us believe that WINZ systems are working as intended.

    • RedLogix 8.1

      My brother tell us much the same. With a few doozies thrown in that aren’t my stories to tell.

      And just to make sure no-one at WINZ ever gets to understand your situation they keep rotating and allocating staff at random. Each visit is back to square zero.

      It’s an intentionally abusive, shaming and bullying system. Dismantle it totally with a UBI.

      • It’s an intentionally abusive, shaming and bullying system. Dismantle it totally with a UBI.

        QFT

        Need to change the financial system for that to work though. Get it so that people understand that money starts at the government and ends at the government in a virtuous cycle.

        And we need to get people to understand that the present system is a pyramid scheme that will crash society.

      • Anne 8.1.2

        It’s an intentionally abusive, shaming and bullying system. Dismantle it totally with a UBI.

        Back in the 1990s under the stewardship of Christine Rankin beneficiaries went through the same cycle of harassment, abuse, shaming, bullying and humiliation. I was looking after my aged mother who was deteriorating physically and mentally and trying to make ends meet on a miserably low DPB benefit courtesy of Ruth Richardson. I also cheated. A family friend paid me to do some housework and ironing for her which I didn’t report. It brought in an extra $30-$40 per week which enabled me to pay my power bills.

  9. adam 9

    I see james is at his hypocritical best on this thread. Funny not seeing him or any other of our resident trolls, complaining hard about the taxes not getting paid under national. Didn’t see any of them get behind the panama papers. Didn’t see any of them call out the Muppet from the tobacco industry, leching our tax dollars. Not seeing them decrying any of this and other frauds by the right.

    But boy, is he and his ilk, shouting about a few hundred dollars that someone needed to live on.

    Must be good to have such blinkers on. Or even better to be able to live with ones self being that hypocritical everyday. But then again as a Christian I take responsibility and embrace ethics. I also give two cent about the poor.

    Something which has become starkly obvious is that the right in this country have given up on Christianity, and now use it to get political power. My guess, most of the right would struggle to read the gospels – probably call it communism or some such.

    • Anne 9.1

      Something which has become starkly obvious is that the right in this country have given up on Christianity, and now use it to get political power. My guess, most of the right would struggle to read the gospels – probably call it communism or some such.

      I’m sure I heard Matthew Hooton this morning on RNZ claim the Greens are going down a path to Communism with their S.W. policy. 🙂

      I also read somewhere that the Exclusive Brethren leaders have asked their members to pray daily for a National Party victory “because they are the only true Christian political party in NZ“. I’m not religious, but I do try to live by Christian standards and that claim left me gasping…

      • adam 9.1.1

        The same Exclusive Brethren who have the heights rate of alcoholism of any religious minority. The same Exclusive Brethren who regularly imply death threats against former members who are gay? The same Exclusive Brethren who shackle women?

        This is a church so far of the path, it’s not funny. I remember they would preach on the streets of Motueka and when you try to engage them – they would pretended you did not exist. I’m a defender of religious tolerance, but when a group is hell bent on hate, I think we need to say you can’t use Christianity as a cover anymore. Let alone as a front to not pay taxes.

        My guess the Exclusive Brethren are going to be spending up big this election.

        As for Hooton, he has no morals, so he will say what ever makes him money. As for Green policy being communalism, if only. Oh wait he went red scear mode and said communism, from the guy who thinks unconditional love is communism, I’m not surprise.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts