Priorities

Written By: - Date published: 9:05 am, May 28th, 2013 - 19 comments
Categories: poverty - Tags:

Which is larger?

  • The $2b in tax cuts National gave the rich?
  • The$100m that National has spent on asset sales so far?
  • The $50m that National has lost small corporate ‘mum and dad’ investors in Mighty River so far?
  • The $40m in taxpayer funding that National is giving private schools?
  • Or what National can scrabble together for a half-hearted school breakfasts programme?

Answer to be revealed. Update: $9.5 Million.

19 comments on “Priorities ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. amirite 1
    28 May 2013 at 9:56 am

    When he was announcing the upcoming school brekkie programme on TV yesterday, Key looked like he was swallowing a cup of cold sick. It goes against everything he believes in but the polls forced him to do it. Hence the half-arsed effort, which is to be expected from a giant douchebag.

  2. Blue 2
    28 May 2013 at 10:07 am

    So if he doesn’t do it, he’s terrible, and if he does do it he’s terrible. Moronic.

    • Molly 2.1
      28 May 2013 at 10:34 am

      You are right. He is terrible.

    • Lightly 2.2
      28 May 2013 at 10:45 am

      If he does it well, he’s done good.

      Simply doing some half-hearted corporate-funded thing and calling it a school breakfasts programme doesn’t mean it’s a good one.

    • Colonial Viper 2.3
      28 May 2013 at 10:53 am

      So if he doesn’t do it, he’s terrible, and if he does do it he’s terrible. Moronic.

      Uh…the fact that he’s insincere about the whole thing and is simply terrible might be the issue at hand.

    • Opium Eater 2.4
      28 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

      Yes. He is a terrible horrible person and no amount of greasing up to the voters will change that.

  3. vto 3
    28 May 2013 at 11:44 am

    Here is another one which exposes the priority of the greedy money-grubbing heartless National Party government…

    Last week itr was announced that those farmers who had their product stuck on wharves in China due to cock-ups at government department the MPI will get compensation for the failings of MPI.

    Yet, when people in East Christchurch get shafted due to cock-ups galore due to government department EQC they get told to harden up and take it.

    If it is good enough for farmers why isn’t it good enough for East Chch people? Is there some unknowne factor which means farmers money is more important than people’s homes and lives? Can somebody please explain how these two situations marry up?

    These arseholes are arseholes pure and true.

    • weka 3.1
      28 May 2013 at 11:58 am

      In the neoliberal world view, Farmers are important contributers to the economy (plus they vote National, and are often mates of NACT people). Chchers are victims of their own bad planning, esp those poor ones in the East. Obviously if they had been Good People, they would have had enough money to sort their own problems out – if Farmers can house themselves while running a big business, then why can’t everyone else? Plus poor Chch people don’t contribute to the economy, they most likely won’t vote NACT next time (if they vote at all), and they don’t get to have morning tea with Bill English when he is in town.

      • ropata 3.1.1
        28 May 2013 at 12:13 pm

        Canterbury farmers are more deserving of ECAN gerrymanders and all the clean water. Christchurch residents can drink liquefaction.

  4. tracey 4
    28 May 2013 at 11:52 am

    It’s all in the English when it comes to farmers

  5. tracey 5
    28 May 2013 at 12:02 pm

    For the record I believe that farmers are important to NZ and many of the things we want to have and be. But then I also believe that children should grow up in loving homes with a living wage and the possibility of pursuing something they are passionate about.

  6. fabregas4 6
    28 May 2013 at 1:23 pm

    $9.5m OVER 5 YEARS! or $1.9m per year. Now make the comparisons

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      28 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

      Roughly the same as the bonuses the Mighty River Power board got for flogging off our state assets. Here are some drippings from our dining table, little poor rodent children!

  7. Molly 7
    28 May 2013 at 5:34 pm

    For those of you who (like me) appreciate a quick – graphics based view of government spending – visit the “Where are my taxes” site – courtesy of Ryan Delaney, Mark Hansen & Luke Bjerring. Data is taken from the NZ Treasury.

    Of some interest:

    EXPENSES
    Social Development Ministry total: $21.52 billion
    (Superannuation $10.23 billion, DPB $1.74 billion)

    INCOME
    Inland Revenue – Child Support Collections $773million

    Actual cost of Domestic Purposes Benefit – $967 million
    less than 5% of the Social Development spend, and less than 10% of the Superannuation spend.

    • RedBaronCV 7.1
      28 May 2013 at 9:38 pm

      I had a quick look and it doesn’t look like those figures to me. IRD collected $223m in child support and passed that on to the 60,000 caregivers who are not drawing benefits. That works out as the grand sum of $3700 per family per annum from the liable parent or $71 per week for everything for the children with the rest coming out of good old Mum’s wages.
      FFS they wrote off more child support than they paid over to caregivers.
      They spend all their time arguing that liables don’t have to pay.

  8. Mariana Pineda 8
    28 May 2013 at 9:27 pm

    If they had been serious about helping hungry kids they would have had a plan ready at budget time.

    Kids should not be an afterthought.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.