The biggest propaganda campaign ever
February 27th, 2005 at 5:17 pm by David FarrarIn 1993 Helen Clark attached Nationals $2.5 million of advertising to explain the health reforms.
This year she is spending an obscene $21 million to promote Labour’s
No tag for this post.
February 27th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Rodney doesnt know his Arthur for his martha!.
‘Working for families’ specifically applies to working families ! Doh. Those 100,000 beneficiaries dont qualify full stop.
Rodney has decided to be the next Hunter Thompson, he all ready has the ‘loathing’ part down pat , so hes trying out the fear bit. Quick watch him rush up to Albania where he will peddle this nonsense with Mr 0.1% audience share
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
Rodney doesnt know his Arthur for his martha!.
‘Working for families’ specifically applies to working families ! Doh. Those 100,000 beneficiaries dont qualify full stop.
Rodney has decided to be the next Hunter Thompson, he all ready has the ‘loathing’ part down pat , so hes trying out the fear bit. Quick watch him rush up to Albania where he will peddle this nonsense with Mr 0.1% audience share
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Go back into your cave, dork. The ‘Working for Families’ package IS a beneficiary scheme – it makes more familes the recipients of social welfare, and increases the benefits some families already receive.
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
The package is a targeted tax cut….which is why neoliberals hate it! They would prefer an indiscriminate cut, which gives ordinary taxpayers little, and their rich backers the majority. Everyone knows ordinary taxpayers will just waste the money on food, education and medical care for their kids, rather than essentials like rolex watches and porsches..
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Don’t ya just love these targeted tax cuts where you have to beg for them? Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy for those 50,000 families! So rather than just getting a pay increase, they have to fill in forms and feel like they’re getting a handout. Wonderful!!!
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
It is not a tax cut, targeted or other. Tax cuts involve people paying less tax. This involves people paying mroe tax, and trhe Government giving their tax dollars to other people to reward them for having kids.,
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 10:20 pm
Yup, got that, David. I do totally agree with you, just had to poke Johnie with a stick a little. Probably didn’t make any impact, but I can hope.
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
David, half right, this does not involve people payng more tax, they`re overtaxed already, and it not only rewards people for having kids, it compensates those who are having kids on a low income, and also those who pay high accommodation costs.
Vote:February 27th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Once upon a time Johnie said: “Everyone knows ordinary taxpayers will just waste the money on food, education and medical care for their kids..”
Gee Johnie, as a typical taxpayer (You can be ordinary, and I’ll be typical) I also happen to know that I’ll waste my money on Laptops at Wananga, 105 useless tank thingies, 30 grand on David Hunts cab fares, 15+ million on advertising a benefit in an election year, a driving range for 25 students, 7 million dollars for a bloody good training course purchased without tender, at arms length, without favoritism, of the daughter of the Head of a college that had over 200 million dollars of discretionary tax payer funds last year. The list is much bigger, I could destroy your scroll bar, but you get the idea.
The other part of this idea is that all of those items are purchased from my pay packet BEFORE I buy those essentials like food for my kids.
We can and need to curb government spending. They are spending more tax dollars than EVER before. Reigning in government spending need not be at the expense of the “safety net” lefties seem so willing to throw more money at, never wondering why the money doesn’t actually get there.
“Just tax more, that’s the answer. Accident and Emergency will have enough band-aids if we just raise taxes by another 6 billion a year”
“Still can’t afford the band-aids? Gee, lets get those fat cat bastards earning over $50,000. It’s their fault.”
This advertising expenditure is just another example of a long list of total disrespect for the tax dollars they are entrusted to spend wisely.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 5:22 am
Now Tyrone, you’re just being an angry unjust righty, demanding all this accountability from our Government.
Lie back and think of Helen.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 10:13 am
It’s one think to lie back and think of Helen, and its quite another to be told to bend over and think of Cullen.
Hmmm. It may not be so different.
And I’m not angry. “You haven’t seen me when I’m angry.”
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 10:21 am
We already reward taxpayers who buy investment properties with fake depreciation allowances, and yes you have to apply for it , so that makes all who claim depreciation ‘drones of the state’?
Stake out your views guys, the voters will be reminded of this,
Hey ho, Hey ho, social security has to go !!
Don had Orewa, Labour has tax cuts for working families ( not those on benefits ), this one must really have the national 20% club in a panic.
So what if they have to spend $25 million to reach every last eligible family . Jenny’s $2.5 million 10 years ago would cost twice that now, and was only to tell people to pay at the cash register on their way out of the public hospital ward
If you are paying too much tax guys, its a democracy , Labours’ political capital was earned the old fashioned way ,in an election. Plus you can emigrate where you will find Australia’s top tax rate 47%, or in the US paying the local council $8000 plus per year, and the Federal income tax which has capital gains built in to it.
Vote:hey Ho Hey Ho!!
February 28th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Hey Marigold if you dont like anything the government does in the future you can fuck off too!
These are not tax cuts! Tax cuts means that you pay less tax, it does not mean you get tax back. That is a transfer payment and it involves extra costs. The best way to implement the “tax cuts” would have been to collect less tax, but then again you wouldnt be able to advertise how you are “making things more affordable for avergae Joe New Zealander”.
And what is wrong with tax cuts across the board? Why simply target the poor? Because making the poor appreciate the extra money, and at the same time scaring them with “National will take this from you” BS is the easiest way for Labour to build political capital the old fashioned way. Labour is buying votes with our money.
Besides, the role of the government is not to do everything that the majority desires. I mean consider a nanny that gives the child everything the child desires, the child faints from a sugar overdose. The government is there to enforce the rules that will provide for the optimal outcome for the most people, disincentivising entreprenuership through excessive taxation is not going to have any positive future returns.
Your argument that the $25 million was necessary to reach every last family and the inference that it has succeeded in doing so ring hollow, as David has already pointed out that a personalised letter would cost far less. A letter sent directly to a persons address is far more likely to “reach” an individual than a piece of polical propoganda that will get drowned out with the rest of the advertising babble.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Moxie – in regard to your first question – If Rodney Hide doesn’t know his “Arthur from his Martha”, then it’s only because the Government Minister is a) stupid, and doesn’t know his Arthur from his Martha first. Or b) deliberately misleading the public. Take the time to actually read the Ministers answer, which specifically mentioned beneficiaries:
Subject: 01185 (2005) Published – Social Development & Employment –
Question:
Are beneficiary, working and any other families or individuals who are entitled to increased support from the Working for Families package from 1 April 2004 required to contact or respond to any government department or other agencies in order to receive that entitlement, if so, what contact or information do they have to provide?
Portfolio: Social Development & Employment
Minister: Hon Steve Maharey
Date Lodged:16/02/2005
Answer Text: Any increase for people already in receipt of assistance will be paid automatically.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
kumble..”..Hey Marigold if you dont like anything the government does in the future you can fuck off too!…
maintaining your usual high standard of debate?
or are you just really pissed, and lashing out, at the latest poll results; showing bash’s exercise in marginalising the weakest in our society, for political gain, has been an abject failure. the future looks grim eh?…denial time over?
i don’t like to gloat kumble; but you deserve it.
ha, bloody, ha…….chin up!
hey!, his hagiography is a bundle of involuntary humour, isn’t it?
cheers
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Ah phule, I thought I recognised your foul stench as soon as I was brought on board. (Many will laugh at this witty reference, others may wince at its butchered use)
It is getting boring, phule, having to explain things in a “simple” manner for you. But such is the duty of the considerate man.
It was a response to marigold essentially saying the same thing. “Hey, if you dont like what the government does you can just leave.”
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Stephen thanks for use of an actual Ministerial reply.
Keys asked this question too
“how many families are estimated to receive any type of family support in the years March years 2004 to 2008, broken down by type of assistance, and whether the family also received a benefit? ”
Who can make any sense of this, but he cats his net wide.
And here is Cullens reply:
http://publications.clerk.parliament.govt.nz.clients.intergen.net.nz/Attachments/13537%20(2004)%20-%20PQ%2013537.DOC
Estimates for the year to March 2004 were supplied in the response to question 5412.
For 2005 to 2008, the figures in the table below are based on Inland Revenue
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
kumble…i just went back and read marigolds comment…she/he said nothing of the sort..i thought she/he was just pointing out that you guys should stop whinging because you’d be worse off in those places…i didn’t get any fuck off out of it..
anyway you dodged the main point didn’t you darling?
the poll results? you’ve all been very quiet on that haven’t you….it’s alright..i can understand..
“..Many will laugh at this witty reference…
quite fancy yourself, eh? do you talk about youself in the third person? or is it not that advanced yet?
cheers
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Ahhh phil I know who Kimble is now —- He’s the one that makes you call people darling.
Vote:WE would like to point out also that when you call someone darling there is normally some total shit comment following.
I don’t like to gloat phil but you really are full of shit.
Allah protect us
February 28th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
FFS phule, do I have to explain what I said too?
My point was that it that what OTHER countries do is irrelevant in a debate about what is best for this country, unless you are pointing out the flaws or benefits of their system. Simply because other countries charge more tax doesnt mean it is right for NZ to. Nor does it mean we should just accept it becuase we would be worse off if we moved there.
Explaining my comments to you phule is a chore but I’ll do it to illuminate that which is depressingly dim. I mean, you might be simple, but you are still trying and that is something to be admired. The way you keep at a topic, ignoring set backs and not letting lack of comprehension get in your way is damn near courageous.
If you are objecting to the language… well i dont give two shits and half a fuck.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
I’ll be interested to watch the savagery here in a few months, when act doesn’t get over 5% in the elction, and national falls apart when saint noddie doesn’t manage to part the red sea, and pull their vote above 30%…
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
I wonder why Labour are not spending $10 million on advertising the new petrol tax rise? It’s important we understand who is responsible for each tax rise as it comes.
It’s a good opportunity to show the complete breakdown of government take at the pump, and how those dollars don’t always go back to the regions the government said they would, and how even the money gets spent on different things.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say the government only advertises when they have “good news”.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
profit….”WE would like to point out also that when you call someone darling there is normally some total shit comment following…..”
the comment that followed was on the poll results om the weekend showing national choking.
still no comment on that eh? denial is very unhealthy profit….
kumble…yawn..
johnie… i am sooo looking forward to that.
Vote:February 28th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
kumble….this one is for you.
http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/01/10/tomo/index1.html
cheers
Vote: