Dogs and Poodles
March 29th, 2006 at 7:08 am by David FarrarEIght years was more than long enough to spend as a staffer in Parliament but I do sometimes miss the routine of watching question time with your colleagues and friends on house sitting days. The collective reactions to great lines is always good.
I can just imagine how well Gerry Brownlee’s line went down yesterday. Jim Anderton was being asked about micro-chippings dogs (and how he as No 3 in Cabinet got rolled by Mahuta at No 18). Somehow apples started to be talked about and then Winston Peters tried to ask a question about apples also.
The Speaker (correctly) ruled it out of order over Winston’s objections. In a rare move though Gerry Brownlee took a point or order to support Winston:
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I think that perhaps it is appropriate for the House to grant leave in this case, since we are on dogs, to get a question from the poodle.
Classic.
No tag for this post.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:47 am
Well I suppose Brownlee was upset with Rt Hon knowing that Labours “Working for Families” package is now in. This package would see young families getting up to $200.00 a week back in their pockets. Brownlee of course would be upset with Rt Hon & NZ First + UF for supporting this. Thats why I believe the above 2 parties proped up Labour, knowing…Need not Greed!
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Hey Cadmus, give me 65% of your income, and after taking my share for administration, I give the rest of it back to you. If you need it, of course. If not, I’ll give it to someone else.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Must be a day ending in a y, cadmus is blowing MiniMuldoon
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Meh, if we’re going to relegate Peters from Big Dog to Small Dog I think the analogy should be more Chihuahua than Poodle. Winston is never benign enough for Poodle, but I can definitely see him as a ill-tempered Chihuahua:-)
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Belt, I’m not getting $1.00 of support from the govt/Taxpayer. I have no community services card and pay my own way. I do however care for those NZers less fortunate than myself. If any young family can get up to $200 back a week I’m glad for them. I would always remind them to thank NZ First + UF for supporting Labour on this legislation.
Vote:Belt, you seem a decent enough guy, although somewhat misguided. Trouble is the less fortunate people now have up to a $200 in the pocket. Which seems to get up the nose of your far right colleagues.
March 29th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Ever consider not TAKING it from them in the first place?
Safe us a hell of a lot on bullshit administration.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Wait a minute, the issue isn’t Labour’s altrism
Vote:(Bastards they are), its the fact Winston’s a
tosser and has been caught out a beauty, thus
continuing his demise into mediocrity.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:17 am
So why is it only families that get this – what about people in the same financial situation who haven’t married and/or created sprogs?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Cadmus, If you really cared for NZers less fortunate than yourself, you would want to bring them to a place where they can be independent and prosperous.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 9:33 am
And Cadmus, why is it that if you earn a dollar per year less you suddenly do get $200 month a back?
But like Murray pointed out – it’s just so they can skim their administration costs off the top and feed more government officials.
Because leaving that $200 in their pocket in the first place would be a damn sight better than turning the middle class into beneficiaries as well.
And don’t tell me somebody earning $70,000 per year is a poor, unfortunate New Zealander …
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Actually, go look at this Cadmus. A single person, earning $900 per week living in Onehunga qualifies.
How are they poor, unfortunate New Zealanders?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Tincanman – I’ve looked at that web-page. It’s unbelievable.
How come some rich tossers can live in a flash suburb of Auckland with a nice house and earn $1395 a week and get a HANDOUT! Yet I decide to live in a “lesser” suburb and don’t get anything unless I earn less than $975!
That table is so skewed towards Auckland it is not funny – if you want to live in Auckland, no problems, but I don’t see why my taxes have to pay for your choice in deciding to live there, and then pciking to live in suburbs with the greatest percentage of capital gain.
Another case of fairly blatant vote buying in the Auckland electorates.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 10:40 am
This completely appals me. Assuming I’ve worked this out right – a single person , with no children, living in Central Auckland, earning $47,000 a year is entitled to some form of accommodation supplement.
Vote:That’s more than enough money to survive!
March 29th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Stephen, it gets me too. It really does. The worst is that it is billed as “Working for Families”. I realise that the social-liberal view in New Zealand allows for anything and his dog to be classified as a family, but I hadn’t realised that a single person qualified. Maybe they’re counting Mrs Palmer and her five daughters?
Anyway, I looked at the calculation for disposable income between the $900 wage earner renting in Onehunga and myself, who, admittedly am paying a mortgage. But if it wasn’t for my second job we’d be receiving roughly the same per week in disposable / living allowance.
So why don’t I get anything back from my taxes? I’m no better off than him. (Considering the bank owns my home until I’m done paying for it, I have to pay rates, maintenance, etc. which that sod doesn’t have to do)
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Hmm, if Winny is the bitches’ poodle, and cadmus is winnys bitch, then does that makes Cadmus the bitches poodles bitch?
Confusing.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 10:51 am
What burns my cannolis is the WFF adverstisement with the teenager who needs to be txt messaged that dinner’s ready because she’s listening to her iPod. Hmmm … cellphones and iPods … good to see tax dollars going in the right places.
Oh. Wait. It’s not a handout … it’s a “tax credit.”
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 11:13 am
TCM, A single person, earning $900 per week living in Onehunga qualifies ? Really ? Bloody hell, Labour can’t even get socialism right.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 11:23 am
That’s the way I read the “More affordable housing” page on the working for families site. A single person, earning $909 or less per week living in Area1 qualifies. Area1 is quite broad and covers:
Albany, Army Bay, Awaruku, Bayswater, Beachhaven North, Beachhaven South, Birkdale North, Birkdale South, Birkenhead East, Browns Bay, Campbells Bay, Castor Bay, Chelsea, Crown Hill, Dairy Flat-Redvale, Forrest Hill, Glamorgan, Glendhu, Glenfield Central, Glenfield North, Greenhithe, Gulf Harbour, Hatfields Beach, Hauraki, Kaipatiki, Kauri Park, Lake Pupuke, Long Bay, Mairangi Bay, Manly, Monarch Park, Murrays Bay, Mt Victoria, Narrow Neck, Northcote South, Northcross, North Harbour, Oaktree, Ocean View, Orewa, Paremoremo East, Paremoremo West, Pinehill, Red Beach, Rothesay Bay, Seacliffe, Silverdale North, Silverdale South, Stanley Bay, Stanmore Bay, Sunnybrae, Sunnynook, Takapuna Central, Target Road, Torbay, Tuff Crater, Unsworth Heights, Waiake, Waiwera, Westlake, Windy Ridge, Witheford, Abbotts Park, Akarana, Auckland Central West, Auckland Central East, Auckland Harbourside, Arch Hill, Avondale South, Avondale West, Balmoral, Blockhouse Bay, Eden Terrace, Epsom Central, Epsom North, Epsom South, Ellerslie North, Ellerslie South, Ferndale, Freemans Bay, Glenavon, Glendowie, Glen Innes East, Glen Innes North, Glen Innes West, Grafton East, Grafton West, Grey Lynn East, Grey Lynn West, Hamlin, Herne Bay, Hillsborough East, Hillsborough West, Kingsland, Kohimarama East, Kohimarama West, Lynfield North, Lynfield South, Maungawhau, Meadowbank North, Meadowbank South, Mission Bay, Mt Albert Central, Mt Eden East, Mt Eden North, Mt Eden South, Mt Hobson, Mt St John, Mt Wellington North, Mt Wellington South, Newmarket, Newton, New Windsor, One Tree Hill Central, One Tree Hill East, Onehunga North East, Onehunga North West, Onehunga South West, Onehunga South East, Orakei North, Orakei South, Oranga, Otahuhu East, Otahuhu West Owairaka West, Owairaka East, Panmure Basin, Parnell East, Parnell West, Penrose, Point Chevalier West, Point Chevalier East, Point Chevalier South, Point England, Ponsonby East, Ponsonby West, Remuera South, Remuera West, Roberton, Rosebank, Royal Oak, Sandringham East, Sandringham North, Sandringham West, Sherbourne, Springleigh, St Heliers, St Johns, St Lukes, St Lukes North, St Marys, Surrey Crescent, Tamaki, Te Papapa, Three Kings, Waiata, Waikowhai East, Waikowhai West, Waitaramoa, Walmsley, Waterview, Wesley, Westmere
All those places. It rips my sack, to be honest.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Tincanman, Paul, Labour & Associates are offering tax relief “Not” a tax cut, big difference.
Vote:It’s far easier to deal with should economic conditions change in NZ, as you know a tax cut across the board would not be able to be rectified due to international investment, loans, banking etc. With this package the govt can turn the tap on and off with tax relief as needed. And again it is those that “Need it” that are being looked after. This is why Labour had the support of minor Parties, the people saw a common sence Labour govt with NZ1+UF backup, who new the Spend, Borrow & Hope polices of Brash/Hide would lead the country to economic ruin should the world situation change. You can thank the Minor Parties just as much as Labour for helping you and your family out.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Have you actually *looked* at what the Working for Families package does, Cadmus? Or are you just being Winnie’s poodle now?
And if you believe that once somebody is on a benefit they will simply let it go because Labour has decided to turn the “tap” off without a massive outcry you are sorely mistaken.
And no, I can’t thank them. Because neither Labour nor any of the idiotic minority parties have done a SINGLE thing for me and my family. The only people who would’ve done something for me was Don Brash and the National Party.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Hay Cadmus, you tosspot my dogs only work for biscuits, do you think they will get welfare. Oh thats right they don’t live in Dorkland.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Cadmus believes having children = less fortunate?
There are plenty of childless couples who would disagree with you there Cadmus, no matter what income they are on.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Tincanman, Yes I looked at the package on the Web. But I don’t get anything out of it myself.
Maybe, but it is easier to regulate tax relief than a tax cut, should conditions change, even you have to agree with that.
I believe you would have found Dr Brash was making promises he couldn’t deliver. It was a spend, borrow & hope, budget he put out. It smelt to me! This package Labour & Associates put together is ready to run, which is great.
My family and self get nothing either, but I’m not worried. I’m just glad to see someone less fortunate getting a slice of the cake instead of a few crumbs
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
You’re a fucking liar cadmus.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
No – Cadmus believes that greedy and lazy = less fortunate.
Those people who want everything NOW rather than saving and/or waiting until they are in a position to support their CHOSEN lifestyle have the RIGHT to be subsidised by the rest of us.
Cadmus – in intelligent non-vitriolic language please refute.
Vote:Everyone else – wait for the Non Sequiter
March 29th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Gary, Sideshowbob. True Gary but you can never please everyone.
Sideshow, I know a few would like to see those in their employment paid in biscuits.
Vote:Thats why Labour & Associates are in power. The majority of voters could smell a rat when they saw what your leaders had to offer them.
March 29th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
lig 374 you say…
No – Cadmus believes that greedy and lazy = less fortunate.
No I don’t, next question.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Murray, what do you mean by that post?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Hmmm – a package that costs $15 million in advertising to try and get people to find out the rules as to whether they apply;
or a system where those eligible just get what they are eligible for.
Know which I would prefer…
I’m just glad to see someone less fortunate getting a slice of the cake instead of a few crumbs Cadmus – I’m starting to wonder if yelling obscenities at you is the right approach because you seem to show insufficient intelligence to actually reason with. The point alot of people here are making is that this “tax relief” [sic] is going to people MORE FORTUNATE than many of those paying for it. I MIGHT get persuaded towards somekind of begrudging acceptance if this was actually going to needy people – but the problem is MOST IS NOT!
Mainly this is a way for Labour to further their policies of equality at all costs and slowly drag the entire country into the dependency trap.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Cadmus – Those people who want everything NOW rather than saving and/or waiting until they are in a position to support their CHOSEN lifestyle have the RIGHT to be subsidised by the rest of us.
was the part I was wanting a rebuttal on – sorry that wasn’t clear.
The incentives of this program and most policies of the Labour party continue to reward those that make decisions based solely on their own immediate gratification.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Ilg 374, you say..
“Mainly this is a way for Labour to further their policies of equality at all costs and slowly drag the entire country into the dependency trap”
Thats your view, the majority of NZ voters thought otherwise.
I take it you would like the law revisited that once only allowed land owners to vote?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Chefen has a bloody brilliant post on the Humphries about how wage parity has effectively killed Sweden. Of course, while there you might want to read about how productivy has been murdered under Labour, etc.
Cadmus, the main thing for me is this. At the end of the day in terms of taking care of my family I’m no better off than your hypothetical sob story earning less than I do. (Taking rent/mortgage out of the equation here). Yet, he qualifies for family assistance living on a comfortable wage when I do not.
That tends to piss people off.
Then you look at the number of NZers living on an above average wage who actually qualify for this benefit! That is quite scary, you know. Labour is destroying the middle class and turning them into the working poor and then hands them some of their money back and people like you come back and say: “Well, good on Labour”.
That just doens’t make sense.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Cadmus you and your communist mates have just damned 350,000 NZ families to a life of welfare dependency. Take a bow.
Benson Pope was extolling the virtues of this policy on the effect it had with a WINZ call centre staff member. Salary $37K, married two young children. He will get an extra $210 pw.
If you look at that handout in pre tax income that would be equivalent to a $15K pay raise.
Why would this guy ever want to take on any extra responsibility, become a team leader or do some study to get a higher paying job. He won’t because of the effect of a 67% margin tax rate.
You and Labour have just condemmed all of these people to low incomes, low quality of life and no aspirations or dreams.
Not satified with just lowe income earners, Helen is trying to fuck over all the middle income earners as well.
As for the rest of us who get nothing we can carry on striving to achieve and better ourselves without the Benson Pope handcuffs.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Thats your view, the majority of NZ voters thought otherwise. Along with the majority view historically being that the world was flat despite proof to the contrary.
I take it you would like the law revisited that once only allowed land owners to vote?
Vote:Actually I don’t see that owning land necessitates that someone understands what and why they are voting for something – so no. If you want to know my views about who should vote and be able to vote feel free to visit my blog tomorrow, you’ve given me the fire to write on the subject ;-p
(http://iiq374.blogspot.com)
March 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
I looked at tincanman’s link, and it looked like my family would get some form of benefit.
If you are … Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4
Single with no children $909 $729 $589 $509
A couple with no children $1135 $995 $795 $715
Sole parent with 1 child $1076 $936 $736 $656
Sole parent with 2 children $1336 $1096 $916 $736
A couple with
1 or more children $1395 $1155 $975 $795
But when I went through and filled out the calculator, it came up with nothing. So I think looking straight at the summary table is a bit misleading.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Tincanman, I agree with you, but thats the toss of the coin in elections. Labour’s option was given the tick by the majority of voters. I have to say I prefered what Labour offered even though it was not perfect. Brash/Hide didn’t add up to me. Even though what they said, I would have made on the deal, but who knows. Again we got nothing out of the families package either.
I see it this way. If National/ACT were prepared to put a belivable package together, you may have won the balance of power. Another thing you forget this is NZ we are not living elsewhere, many are weary of reforms, Brash/Hide types offering their spin on how the country should be run, which seems to many to good to be true without a few barbed hooks attached.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
MarkW – can we ask the sensitive information of what values you entered?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
ilg 374..
Cadmus -” Those people who want everything NOW rather than saving and/or waiting until they are in a position to support their CHOSEN lifestyle have the RIGHT to be subsidised by the rest of us”
I agree with you, but it’s a loaded question. You may feel that is what is happening, but the vast majority of “NON” ACT/National supporters would agree with you also, so whats the point?
I don’t go to other sites. I was abused and kicked off sites for making alternative comments the host didn’t like. Apart from here most hosts want their ego massaged. I suppose you do also?
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Southern Raider, I’m not a Communist.
Vote:What you have is life under a democracy. The majority of NZers were happy with what labour had to offer and voted accordingly. You may not be happy with this, but many are. If you don’t like what you have, do what others here do, join a Political group for change. And then you have to see if the new govt will change the previous govt’s policy?
March 29th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Actually No – I would prefer to be challenged by an actual coherent argument.
One of the main frustrations that I have especially in the lead up to the previous election is that there was only a single Labour voter that I know who could even try to hold a coherent conversation about ANY reason they voted the way they do. I believe one of the most important things is understanding the reasons why people do things – even if they are the wrong reasons.
I promise not to ban you from my site for challenging my opinion
(In fact I might ban you if you dont…)
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Ilg 374, Later, I have things to do that don’t involve a keyboard, bye for now.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Cadmus I am a member of a political group and you have probably guessed it isn’t Labour.
It is well known that Labour put a concerted effort into enrolling lower income people in the large cities and then blackmailed them with these promises.
Of course someone in this situation is only going to look at the effect on their next weeks income, not what their life and future for their children may be 5 years out.
There is no incentive on Labour to increase salaries because they will lose votes to the centre right parties as peoples incomes improve.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I looked at tincanman’s link, and it looked like my family would get some form of benefit.
If you are … Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4
Single with no children $909 $729 $589 $509
A couple with no children $1135 $995 $795 $715
Sole parent with 1 child $1076 $936 $736 $656
Sole parent with 2 children $1336 $1096 $916 $736
A couple with
1 or more children $1395 $1155 $975 $795
But when I went through and filled out the calculator, it came up with nothing. So I think looking straight at the summary table is a bit misleading.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
iiq374
“One of the main frustrations that I have especially in the lead up to the previous election is that there was only a single Labour voter that I know who could even try to hold a coherent conversation about ANY reason they voted the way they do. ”
Interesting, I had exactly the same experience – when speaking to National voters…
Perhaps it’s more to do with cognitive static (on our parts) than a lack of any real arguments…
I don’t know that Cadmus is the place to find what you’re looking for…
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
“MarkW – can we ask the sensitive information of what values you entered?”
iiq374, it was $770 in Area 3.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
weizguy – sorry I didnt mean to indicate that it was ONLY labour voters I had that issue with – just MAINLY. And of course you will always notice it more when discussing with the opposite side of the spectrum because you are already agreeing with those on your side BOCTAOE.
I don’t know that Cadmus is the place to find what you’re looking for… Depends – Im mainly looking for rebuttal and debate, didn’t necessitate intellegent or likelihood of changing opinions ;-p
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Cadmus: “My family and self get nothing either, but I’m not worried. I’m just glad to see someone less fortunate getting a slice of the cake instead of a few crumbs.”
So am I, Cadmus. I didn’t get anything either, so I’ve decided to give myself a handout. Here’s how:
1. During the current financial year, I’ve given $2450 to various charities. Next year, nothing. (I’ve already cancelled a money direct credit.)
2. For the past four years, I have coached a schoolboy cricket team. Of the 13 members in last summer’s team, 9 come from single-parent families. On several occasions over that four-year period, I’ve paid the subs ($30 per kid per year) for some of those kids. Why, because their mothers couldn’t, and I didn’t want them to miss out. I also saw it as a civic duty: for most of them, I was the only male role model in their lives. Guess what? Next summer, my family will come first. No coaching, and I’ll also withdraw the gear that I bought for these kids with my own money.
I’ll take Cullen’s refusal to give me something of my own money back as his – and (according to you) the majority of NZ society’s – way of saying “f*ck off, you ‘rich’ c*nt”.
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Sorry, that should read ‘…monthly direct credit.’
Vote:March 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
tobby1845,
Vote:may I respectfully suggest, after reading the above posts, you were coaching cricket for the wrong reasons.
Let me get this clear . If the nats had got in and you received a tax cut you would continue coaching cricket ?
I am glad you have removed yourself as a “male role model “you ‘selfish’ c*nt”.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
In keeping with the insults at question time Ron Marks did very well.
In discussion about the Commonwealth Games performance he suggested Keith Locke was our best medal chance if they had a competition for prats and that he was guaranteed to take the gold medal at the world champs.
Ron even carried on as Wilson tried to censure him.
Well done mark.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Are there any non welfare recipients left in NZ?
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Foz – You are incorrect. National promised that they would keep the Non-Working Families package, and give tax relief to those who did not qualify.
The selfish ‘c*nts’ are those who voted Labour to get money for themselves while making sure that those who pay the majority of the tax got nothing.
The reason that I’m not coaching cricket has nothing to do with tax cuts. It has everything to do with the clear message that I am receiving from Cullen, Benson-Pope, Cadmus and now you that my contribution to this country is neither valued nor welcome.
Perhaps your hero, Benson-Pope, might like to coach cricket. He obvious likes kids. I’m sure that a game that involves maidens, slips, lifting the covers, and ‘jamming it into the blockhole’ would suit him. Of course, the kids shower at home after the game, so he’d miss out on peeping in at them , but never mind.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 7:04 am
“The reason that I’m not coaching cricket has nothing to do with tax cuts. It has everything to do with the clear message that I am receiving from Cullen, Benson-Pope, Cadmus and now you that my contribution to this country is neither valued nor welcome.”
Thank you toby! That is exactly right. What Foz, Cadmus and their ilk can’t get through their thick skulls is that tax cuts aren’t the issue.
If the country couldn’t afford them, fine.
If the country could only afford very limited relief to lower income families, fine.
But when the country is rolling in money that WE have paid, and WE can’t even get a tiny amount back…….
You’re right. Cullen et al are selfish c*nts.
Vote:March 30th, 2006 at 8:00 am
I have just run the figures from Southern Raider in regards to the WINZ call centre staff member. Salary $37K, married two young children. He will get an extra $210 pw. WTF at the moment he DOES NOT pay $210 in taxes even if you take in to account GST on his spending as well as paye. How the hell do you call this tax relief and not welfare!!!!! to make it easy for the loony left who support this scheme
Vote:HE PAYS NO TAXES, NOT A CENT. HE IS NOW WELFARE BENIFICIARY THE REST OF US ARE HAVING TO PAY