Cheap and Nasty
Garth George opines:
In its third term this Labour-led Government will surely be remembered for style over substance or, to put it more bluntly, bullshit over benefit.
The latest and most outstanding example is the vaunted SuperGold card for us over-65s. Despite all the promises and publicity, it is not worth the plastic it is printed on.
It is less than a joke; what it offers is so pathetic as to be contemptible.
Where are the discounts on things essential to the elderly on strictly limited incomes? Like public transport, air fares, petrol and diesel, doctors’ visits, rates, electricity and gas, telephones, spectacles, false teeth, hearing aids and so on?
How come there are no discounts for services provided at a price by the Government itself? Why is it that businesses have to carry the cost?
Because, as usual, the Government wants someone else to pay for what has transpired to be nothing more than a cheap political publicity stunt.
Indeed what was meant to be a huge political success has become a laughing stock.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:56 am
More useless legislation popquiz:
You have members of the population dying because they can’t pay their electricity bill and you are a Green Party Leader. It’s getting quite serious, but it’s ok because you are in a confidence and supply relationship with the Governement.
DO you:
a) Lobby for sustainable energy production that can reduce the burden on the people And don’t take no for an answer!!?
b) Go strangely silent each time the a hike in electricity bills is announced thus colluding in the skimming by the generators?
c) increase the levy/tax on garbage bags so that the common people are squeezed just a little tighter in the name of the Kyoto Protocol?
d) All of the above.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:12 am
All this sort of stuff just reinforces that even awful governments like USA and Russia have their good points.
Maximum of two terms.
Last National governemnt did some seriously dumb things in its third term (eg: electricity reforms by Mad Max Bradford).
And this labour government is doing – well actually I think its trying to set a record for the number of dumb things. With things like electricity and Mad Max its was just stupidity, but this current lot exhibit some insidious traits. I often feel that Helen and her group are trying to punish some section or other of society. Kyoto is the perfect example of this.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Lest we forget.
Remember the SuperGold card is Winston First’s still-born baby – doesn’t ‘bullshit over benefit’, and ‘cheap political publicity stunt’ remind you of that fact?
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 am
National of course would never indulge Winston for the sake of being in govt, so its supporters can afford to take the moral high ground? Yo, stay off the P, National supporters! Clearly it’s addling your brains.
Isn’t Garth George a doddery old git himself? I sense a deep vein of self-interest at play here. The doddery old git writes:
“Where are the discounts on things essential to the elderly on strictly limited incomes?”
Indeed! And where are the discounts on things essential to every other bugger on welfare? There are a lot of people on non-welfare fixed incomes out there, too. No card for them?
I well recall that as a dole bludger many years ago, my bottle store expenses alone came to more than my fixed income, and no bugger ever offered me a discount card to complain bitterly about. Old people these days, they don’t know they’re born…
September 20th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Barry
The Constitution only term limits the President to two terms. Very few states have introduced Congressional term limits. A few Congressmen (House and Senate) announce voluntary term limits about half of whom then break their pledge. The Democrats controlled Congress from 1974 until 1994 and for a good part of the 60’s as well.
The division of power makes autocratic rule by one party neigh impossible. When you add the Presidential veto (that can only be overridden with a 2/3rds majority in BOTH houses) and the Senate fillibuster (that can only be ended with 60 cloture votes) and the fact that the voting public have often elected the President from one party and the Congress from the other (sometimes the Dems hold the House and the GOP the Senate), all legislation is inevitably a compromise. The EFB would not stand a snowballs chance in hell of being passed in America.
When you add recall petitions, BCIR in most states and the ability to pass Constitutional Amendments (albeit a lengthy and arduous process), bad laws do get passed but the numbers are fewer and they can be repealed more easily and their proponents made to suffer at the polls.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Psycho Milt said “Isn’t Garth George a doddery old git himself? I sense a deep vein of self-interest at play here. The doddery old git writes:”
I met Garth George earlier this year – yes, he’s old, but not doddery at all IMHO. For a journalist, he’s a realist, surrounded by young idealists. He says what he believes, and not everyone appreciates that quality!
September 20th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Winston has done what Winston does well. He has manipulated his constituency by offering them a little bauble. There was always more in it for him than for the old folks.
But watch, there more, they will still pour out to vote him and in doing so the parliament is skewed by the sideshow that is NZ (sorry Winston) First.
Psycho Milt, your blog name says it all
September 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Surely this is an opportunity for the Nats. Keep the card but offer some actual benefits for the older folks. And it would only have to be small percentages off things like electricity, rates, doctors visits etc.
Of course you’d have to announce this about 1 microsecond before the election otherwise the Reds will pinch the idea. Their minions are probably reading this now…
September 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
With the over 65s owning most of the wealth in this country, and huge numbers of those under 40 with NEGATIVE net wealth due to student loans and ginormous, crushing mortgages, why should rich old buggers get a discount on anything?
This card AND the old age pension should be means tested- why should the average kiwi taxpayer, earning sub-$40K, subsidise those with millions in the bank and 2 rental properties.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“And where are the discounts on things essential to every other bugger on welfare?”
Why worry Milt? Just keep voting for politicians that promise you handouts. That will fix it. Although, when you and those power seeking looters have eventually completley cleaned out the handoutees, or they’ve all left the country, what will you do then?
Ooops, nobody left to steal off. Look up “falling living standards” or “third world poverty” or “collapse of the Soviet Union”…
Rock on that day.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Lee C: you ask “(a) Lobby for sustainable energy production that can reduce the burden on the people?”
‘Renewable” sustainable electricity production is here.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:15 am
let me get this straight
currently I pay taxes to pay for multi-generational bludgers to sit on their asses, I pay for teenage girls to breed up to 8 kids to as many different fathers, I pay for the kids inevitable hospital treatment, legal fees to defend the useless shitheads who abuse the kids, maybe a spell in prison.
I pay business tax, paye, kiwisaver. I will pay for parents to have a year off when I choose not to have kids ( seems extremely fair….not) I will pay a carbon tax, a rubbish tax.
WTF? I am a hard working Kiwi and where’s any incentive for me to be a law abiding employer contributing to NZ society? None because here we reward the no hopers who breed more non hopers who leech off those of us who have to work so that nanny can run the country into the ground.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:23 am
A Super Gold Card?
Beware the omens, the old aged pension system has similiar vibes….. with all the free bus tickets you can use.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Psycho Milt
He might be 65 but do you want some 20 something journo writing about it? or by someone who actually knows what is being offered to 65 and over.
And the card was all about the Labour’s self interest to stay in power, nothing more.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Thanks frank. My mistake
September 20th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Mark:
1. It’s Winston’s card, not Labour’s.
2. 65 or not, Mr George and his fellow card bleaters give the impression that if you gave them a free whisky, they’d complain that it wasn’t single malt. It’s difficult to share their sense of outrage.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Hey virginblogger,
WTF? I am a hard working Kiwi and where’s any incentive for me to be a law abiding employer contributing to NZ society? None because here we reward the no hopers who breed more non hopers who leech off those of us who have to work so that nanny can run the country into the ground.
Well there must be some incentive for you to work hard, or you wouldn’t be doing it! Unless you’re just stupid…
Cos if leeching’s so great then why isn’t everybody leeching?
I’ll give you a clue why I’m not…
I don’t think it would be much fun to sit on my ass all day. Or to breed up to 8 kids with different mothers (in my case). I think prison would suck. And I’d rather save up money to take a year off than have kids who’d let me take a year off.
All in all, these people you’re so jealous of seem (to me) to have pretty shitty lives. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping you joining them if you’re so jealous of them. Quit your job. Go on the dole. Have lots of kids.
Oh hang on, like most of us you’d actually prefer to work and have a more enjoyable life.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I agree Psycho, You trolls can’t blame the Labour party for Winstons big white elephant.
The Gold card to me was the biggest empty puff of wind that I have seen delivered by Winston ever. I was completely underwhelmed with its offers. Again I think that we should have taken over this whole card scheme and built it into a far more marketable and beneficial card that helped all beneficiaries and pensioner’s alike. This is our Labour heartland not Winston’s Mirror Mirror on the wall scheme to try and get some attention. And he’s not really onside with us on Zaowi either. Without repeating myself to much Goff again did a far better job than Winston on Foreign Affairs as well.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
“Well there must be some incentive for you to work hard, or you wouldn’t be doing it! Unless you’re just stupid…’
For most NZers, the incentive is the welfare of their families, their education, their health, their future housing needs, and they need to work extra hard towards this objective because of scumbag socialists like you Icky Ricky, who elect politicians who steal money from the productive and wastefully dole it out to parasites who will vote for them, and keep them in the seats of power they yearn for so obsessively.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
rickyjj
you misrepresent me – I am not ‘jealous’ I’m mad that this government does nothing to encourage long-term beneficiaries to look for work and help them into schemes. There are no conditions of benefit that prevent horrific abuse cases or crime escalating. This government actively encourages teenagers to have numerous children when they are unprepared for them and do not have vested intetrests of the kids at heart but see having kids as a gravy train. That is what I’m mad at.
I’m sure prison ’sucks’ – who implied it didn’t?
I can tell you there are plenty of people like me who actually contribute positively to this country but are vbecoming more disillusioned and will probably end up going overseas as they don’t like the direction NZ is headed. This will be ultimately a real issue as already we can’t attract enough talented people in professional roles we badly need.
So take your blinkers off and look at my point ( which you missed superbly) which is that we are promoting a society which takes no personal responsibility for anything. The other point is I am sick of this government constantly taking more and more from the taxpayer when they have a huge surplus, yet the health system is a shambles.
September 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
and they need to work extra hard towards this objective because of scumbag socialists like you
Well said Redbaiter.
So no more saying Labour doesn’t provide incentives to work hard and contribute to society!
Because Labour and its scumbag socialist friends clearly provide far more incentives than National ever could.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
well said virginblogger
September 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’m mad that this government does nothing to encourage long-term beneficiaries to look for work and help them into schemes.
Well I for one thought they were, but hey… I’d still rather pay higher taxes than have to look at people to lazy to work starving as I walk down the street.
This government actively encourages teenagers to have numerous children when they are unprepared for them and do not have vested intetrests of the kids at heart but see having kids as a gravy train.
So what should the government do? Let the numerous children starve?
There are no conditions of benefit that prevent horrific abuse cases or crime escalating.
You’re less likely to steal food if the government gives you money to buy it?
I can tell you there are plenty of people like me who actually contribute positively to this country but are vbecoming more disillusioned and will probably end up going overseas as they don’t like the direction NZ is headed.
Gee, we’ll be sorry to see you gone.
This will be ultimately a real issue as already we can’t attract enough talented people in professional roles we badly need.
There’s shit loads of talented people who would love to come and live in NZ. It seems to be mainly Kiwis who can’t understand what an amazing country this is.
which is that we are promoting a society which takes no personal responsibility for anything
So excuse me if I’ve missed your point again, but you want people who don’t work to die?
The other point is I am sick of this government constantly taking more and more from the taxpayer when they have a huge surplus, yet the health system is a shambles.
And your economics degree is from…
Why do you think they have a huge surplus? Do you think Cullen gets to take the money home with him when he gets kicked out? Do you think he got into politics to increase tax and not spend it on anything because he wanted to spite people or something?
September 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
very droll troll ricky, however unfortunately people like you will never see that long-term welfare is not a good thing.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
very droll troll ricky, however unfortunately people like you will never see that long-term welfare is not a good thing.
I totally disagree.
I don’t think long-term welfare is a good thing.
I just think it’s better than what lots of other countries have, which is long-term poverty.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“I just think it’s better than what lots of other countries have, which is long-term poverty.”
Coming here soon, courtesy of Socialists International and their local lackeys…
September 20th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Well I for one thought they were, but hey… I’d still rather pay higher taxes than have to look at people to lazy to work starving as I walk down the street.
so no-one abuses the system and everyone is starving – give us a break – the ones bucking the system spend their benefit on drugs and booze and like the Kahuis collectively earn a shedload more than me
So what should the government do? Let the numerous children starve?
No the government should limit the number of kids we pay for
You’re less likely to steal food if the government gives you money to buy it?
Em you’re less likely to steal drugs if the taxpayer gives you money to buy them
Gee, we’ll be sorry to see you gone.
You will actually that’s the irony because by then the country will have even more crime and violence and without personal accountability and no respect for anything this place will benot the amazing country it should be
There’s shit loads of talented people who would love to come and live in NZ. It seems to be mainly Kiwis who can’t understand what an amazing country this is.
That would be all the Indian taxi driver doctors then.
So excuse me if I’ve missed your point again, but you want people who don’t work to die?
Yes you have but i wouldn’t expect you to grasp it – my actual point was that nobody takes personal responsibility and the it’s not my fault thinking is not healthy for us. Actions have consequences. I suggest you read Nigel Latta’s into the darklands for an insight into the criminal mind.
And your economics degree is from…
Oxford! but not economics
Why do you think they have a huge surplus? Do you think Cullen gets to take the money home with him when he gets kicked out? Do you think he got into politics to increase tax and not spend it on anything because he wanted to spite people or something?
What are you on who is talking about Cullen being spiteful. We know his stance on tax cuts. I don’t know what his motivation for entering politics but I do know that the taxpayer is constantly shelling out with no concessions in other areas.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
so no-one abuses the system and everyone is starving – give us a break – the ones bucking the system spend their benefit on drugs and booze and like the Kahuis collectively earn a shedload more than me
I didn’t say that – obviously the system is abused. But again, I’d rather I payed out more and the system got abused than I payed out less, we had no welfare, and people starved.
No the government should limit the number of kids we pay for
How? Do you want to sterilise people?
Em you’re less likely to steal drugs if the taxpayer gives you money to buy them
True. So again less crime.
You will actually that’s the irony because by then the country will have even more crime and violence and without personal accountability and no respect for anything this place will benot the amazing country it should be
You’d better get packing!
That would be all the Indian taxi driver doctors then.
Oops sorry I forgot, only white people are talented.
And your economics degree is from…
Oxford! but not economics
Or comprehension apparently…
We know his stance on tax cuts.
We do. Our main difference seems to be that I think he thinks what he’s doing is good for the country, and you think he’s some sort of evil monster out to get everyone.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
generous welfare schemes have to be embedded in production regimes that generate high investment levels and high employment rates – this is not the case in NZ and we have created a poverty trap.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
limiting the number of kids paid for by taxpayers to no more than 3 is perfectly reasonable and if they have more they have to fund them or choose sterilisation
actually not less crime because drugs and substance abuse are one of the causes of violent crime
maybe one day you may see the light and start packing yourself, but I don’t expect that you could fit your opinion in your suitcase
my point re Indian taxi drivers is that they are talented but can’t get jobs as doctors in this country . I think the comprehension problem is yours.
Please don’t put assume what I think, but for the record my opinion of Cullen is not personal – he’s a politicain trying to do a job. My beef is that yet again the average Kiwi has to fork out for schemes that have no tangible benefit to those indivduals with no concession and no breaks.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
The abuse creates dependency which assures the benefactor (the government) of votes. Simple formula. Think of it as buying elections by direct credit.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Garth G is spot on in his summation. The political ineptness in the management of this has been simply breathtaking. Look, there was (is) a long established SeniorsCard in being that offered a very large range of discounts for ’seniors’ albeit at a small annual fee.
Why didn’t they simply go to this mob; buy them out; use their existing discount base as a starter; retain them to to keep the process moving forward and there you have a ready to go scheme. Instead, they tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a flat tyre.
In doing so they (Winston) committed a cardinal political sin … over promised and under delivered.
And I won’t even bother to get going on the ‘con’ that attaches to the so called ‘Veterans Goldcard’ except to say that many many veterans simply don’t qualify.
Humbug indeed.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
generous welfare schemes have to be embedded in production regimes that generate high investment levels and high employment rates – this is not the case in NZ and we have created a poverty trap.
Damn NZ’s low employment rates! Oh, hang on…
(Again I realise there’s more that could be done to get these people out of policy, but simply immediately cutting all their welfare is likely to do far more damage than good.)
limiting the number of kids paid for by taxpayers to no more than 3 is perfectly reasonable and if they have more they have to fund them or choose sterilisation
So what happens when a couple has a fourth kid and they can’t afford to feed it? We shoot the kid?
actually not less crime because drugs and substance abuse are one of the causes of violent crime
Amy Winehouse seems to shoot up all the time and she doesn’t do any violent crime… Maybe it’s more than just the drugs? Maybe if drugs weren’t illegal the people who take them wouldn’t have to associate with criminals. Maybe if people didn’t have such shit lives they wouldn’t feel the need to take stuff like p. I know, we should cut welfare – they won’t want to take p if they’re starving.
maybe one day you may see the light and start packing yourself, but I don’t expect that you could fit your opinion in your suitcase
I think NZs doing fine! Why would I leave? You’re the one who thinks everything’s turning to custard.
my point re Indian taxi drivers is that they are talented but can’t get jobs as doctors in this country
No, your original point was about how all our talented people are leaving and how this is such a travesty. I then pointed out that actually a lot of talented people would love to work here. You’d think if we needed talented people as much as you claim we’d give them jobs…
My beef is that yet again the average Kiwi has to fork out for schemes that have no tangible benefit to those indivduals with no concession and no breaks.
There’s a shitload of things my taxes pay for that I see no tangible benefit from, and this is unlikely to change under any government. The sooner you get over it the happier you’ll be.
But you’re right in that there is no logical reason why we should care about anybody except ourselves, so I can’t really argue otherwise, although lots of people do seem to think that there’s more to the world than themselves…
September 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
And the benefits vary depending where you live… my parents (both on a pension with no private income of any sort after a lifetime working in a factory) actually found a couple of offers that might have been of benefit to them. In Christchurch. Pity they’re in Wellington.
Did NZF even try to interest major nationwide service and retail providers in this scheme? Promising to deliver them almost guaranteed custom from a large section of the population in return for a small discount off the margin seems like something most businesses would look favourably upon.
Say whatever else you may about him, but Winston has finely tuned radar for what appeals to his core constituency. I can’t believe he looked at this farce and thought NZF was on to a winner. Seems like he’s still misjudging who he takes his advice from, and letting stuff go out in his name without really understanding what’s in it.
Business as usual, in other words…
September 20th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
ricky
once again you assume, my point is this – I can only speak for myself on the fact that I pay my taxes and am outraged that the government want to tax us yet again
that in no way suggests that I’m a selfish individual who doesn’t give a shit about anyone else. In actual fact I probably do more good work than you for my community in a voluntary capacity
I donate to charities where people genuinely are living in poverty ( so it stinks where we hear of people in this country bludging the system )and to the SPCA who see horrendous abuse cases every single day fuelled by drugs & alcohol or just some sick bastard who has been brought up in a welfare family who don’t give a shit about him and likely has been victim to abuse, who will go onto abuse statistically.
NZ needs to refocus on family values and encourage nurturing of children not just pop them out and you get a few more $
September 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I can only speak for myself on the fact that I pay my taxes and am outraged that the government want to tax us yet again
I think you’ll find the government’s now planning to cut taxes.
Oh hold on, am I assuming again? Let’s see. “am outraged that the government want to tax us yet again”. Yeah no I’m pretty sure you’re saying the government wants to tax us again. Unless you mean again in 2008? Cos yes, they tax us every year. Even ACT would tax us every year.
that in no way suggests that I’m a selfish individual who doesn’t give a shit about anyone else.
Oh no. I can feel your love for all the “multi-generational bludgers” and “useless shitheads”.
In actual fact I probably do more good work than you for my community in a voluntary capacity
You sound like a veritable Mother Theresa. I hear she wanted to shoot 4th born kids too.
I donate to charities where people genuinely are living in poverty
Hmm, possibly in countries where they don’t have welfare? I think I see what you’re getting at… If we cut welfare here you’d be able to donate to white NZ kids living in genuine poverty, instead of those darkies you have to donate to now. Oops, assumption again!
the SPCA who see horrendous abuse cases every single day fuelled by drugs & alcohol
Damn those stoners!
just some sick bastard who has been brought up in a welfare family who don’t give a shit about him
I bet they’d have cared about him more if they’d been starving.
NZ needs to refocus on family values
Why family values?
Why not just regular values, like looking after people whether they’re in our family or not?
How even teenage mothers and welfare bums and hell, even abusers, are people too. People who aren’t doing very well, and need our help not our hate. You claim to be so good yet you seem to genuinely despise all these people who are struggling at the margins of society.
September 20th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
ricky i think we’ve thread-jacked enough but to finish off
I’m talking the carbon tax – hence the word ‘again’
and no it would make no difference to them starving or not because the reason for having children is not a choice based on the fact that they want them and can care for them in every way – it’s a monetary reward.
there is no love for those shitheads that killed Nia after months of abuse
if only stoners were the problem – it’s well researched that kids that torture animals move onto human targets.
Yes abusers are people – very sick angry people
despise is a load of bollocks – it’s the system that’s at fault but essentially the people who commit abuse/murder do so consciously
September 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
ricky i think we’ve thread-jacked enough but to finish off
Sweet.
there is no love for those shitheads that killed Nia after months of abuse
I think that’s a big difference between us.
I really feel for those people.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Refreshing to hear your comments Virginblogger. I nearly packed my bags and left when Labour got back in last time. with young kids though it was just a bit too much.
I can’t think of anything this government is doing to encourage others to work, and more importantly to NOT have kids out of wedlock and without the need for government assistance.
I feel a bit sad at at times that the welfare state seems to have strangled the independent, can do attitude of many new zealanders.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“I really feel for those people.”
In one way, so do I. Victims of the left’s lust for power.
September 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
rickyjj
So much socialist crap its hard to know where to begin.
Ending open ended welfare entitlement in the US did not result in the rampant increase in poverty that lefties like you predicted. Many of the doomsayers have had to eat humble pie and admit 10 years later, that Clinton’s welfare reforms (actually Congress’ reforms that Clinton reluctantly signed into law) have worked well. Child poverty is down in the US and black child poverty (that had been steadily rising for decades) is also down. The Childrens Defence Fund (initially vehement opponents of welfare reform) analysed the US Census figures and calculated that 1.3 million black children were lifted out of poverty from 1995 – 2001 and 476,000 more were lifted out of extreme poverty. Most of this was due to the skyrocketing employment rate of solo mums. The welfare rolls have been halved nationwide and in some states are down by 70%. The explosive growth of out of wedlock births has slowed since 1995 and is now slightly reversing itself after decades of rising inexorably.
You see rickjj people merely respond to the incentives in the system. When people were told you have 5 years to sort out your life and get a job that’s exactly what a good number of those on welfare did. When you have a job you make more money than when on a benefit, you gain self esteem, your children see a work ethic and are less likely to engage in crime, drug use and become the next generation of welfare recipients.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
KIA-
From 1995 to 2001 the US economy boomed – so the poverty reduction was likely more about the subsequent increase in the employment rate that this created. So well done on your deceptive cherry-picking of statistics there.
And you’re absolutely wrong in asserting that the only way to produce a high employment rate is through neo-liberalist welfare reforms. i.e. it’s well know that the social democratic Scandinavian countries have the highest employment rates in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
September 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Roger
The poverty rate kept declining even after the 9/11 induced contraction. US welfare dependancy continued to rise during the booming economic times of the 1980s so sorry that arguement doesn’t wash.
Im not arguing about which economic system produces high employment rates only that the huge growth in the employment rate of solo mothers (a group that had previously been the most resistant to reductions in real numbers) played a large part in such quantifiable reductions in poverty.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Roger
You make frequent use of wikipedia links to make your points. Has anyone pointed out to you that anyone can update a wiki entry so a particular entry can have the ideological flavour of a the person making the entry that sometimes bears little resemblance to the real facts. Many entries are reasonably accurate but you’d have more credibility on this blog if you linked to real peer reviewed studies and preferrably ones not published by partisan interest groups
September 20th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“The poverty rate kept declining even after the 9/11 induced contraction”
I don’t believe that there was a contraction of the US economy after 9/11 – maybe a briefer slowing of economic growth though.
“US welfare dependency continued to rise during the booming economic times of the 1980s”
You call a stock market crash and subsequent recession “booming economic times”? The 1980s were economically disastrous for all OECD countries (save for perhaps 1980-1982).
You’re starting to sound like you’re just making shit up now I’m afraid KIA.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“You make frequent use of wikipedia links to make your points. Has anyone pointed out to you that anyone can update a wiki entry so a particular entry can have the ideological flavour of a the person making the entry that sometimes bears little resemblance to the real facts”
Go and check the article’s fucking source then moron!
September 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Oh and you champion the American neoliberal economy so often, yet quite frankly it’s difficult to see what you’re getting so excited about at times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
September 20th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Roger
As usual you twist and distort. The economy in 2000 was battered by the dotcom collapse and suffered a severe contraction post 9/11 that was alleviated by the Federal Reserve dropping the rates abd the Bush tax cuts. Poverty continued to fall through all this.
The US economy boomed from 1981 to the stock market crash in late 1897. Through all those boom years welfare rolls continued to rise.
NZ’s economic growth since 1999 and low unemployment rate has seen the numbers on the sickness and invalids benefit rise 40%. Similar benefits in the UK fell 4% and the Aussie equivalent fell 16%. Similar economic growth and low unemployment conditions applied in all 3 countries and yet NZ’s sickness benefit roll rises sharply and the others fall because the UK and Australia introduced tougher controls on such benefits.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Roger
I avoid nasty personal attacks laced with profanities. Is it too much to ask the same?
September 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“The US economy boomed from 1981 to the stock market crash in late 1897. Through all those boom years welfare rolls continued to rise.”
Bullshit – the oil shocks of the early 1980s cause inflation and growth in unemployment from about 1983 onwards – where were the boom times?
“The economy in 2000 was battered by the dotcom collapse and suffered a severe contraction post 9/11″
Bullshit – show me where the US economy contracted in the post 9/11 environment. Put up or shut up.
“NZ’s economic growth since 1999 and low unemployment rate has seen the numbers on the sickness and invalids benefit rise 40%. Similar benefits in the UK fell 4% and the Aussie equivalent fell 16%.”
So? New Zealand has among the highest employment rates in the OECD – this is a provable fact – our labour market strategy has been successful at created jobs and getting people into work there can be no doubt about that. This contrasts with your waffling about numbers on sickness benefits
which for all we know is fabricated nonsense.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
rickyjj (does jj stand for juvenile jerkoff?)
What you are saying is that if we don’t give money to the no-hopers they will commit crime against us. Basically they are holding us to ransom.
What a wonderful fucking country to live in.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Poor Rog….he doesn’t do paid work I believe…. and that results in the lefty excuse problem.
Sympathise, don’t mock….he bears a great burden.
Auntie Tina is here to help.
Capitalism and markets, the successful system vs socialism and proscription……
Reality is a bitch, eh Rog?
September 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
rickyjj (does jj stand for juvenile jerkoff?)
Um duh. But I’d prefer if you didn’t give out my full name Murray. Thanks.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“What a wonderful fucking country to live in.”
The socialists love it. They’re wallowing in their religion.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
the socialists must’ve somehow become very,very wealthy and the new right wing because no one in my circles can keep up wif them and I’ve seen a few moons.
Does anyone know someone who is glad Helen Clark and Michael Cullen run this country; under the fuel companies
September 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
yes they have. used to be called highway robbery. today it’s called tax extortion.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Indeed….pubic servant “managers”, consulants of all strips, ethnic elites, providers of services to the “course” industry etc are a few of your favourite things.
Most NZeders need their lives managed by someone, as both parties agree…..enjoy suckers.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I only prompted you to say that because you’re still allowed to.
If labour get in again and you say that, you’ll be treated like a crazy Kiwi and shot.
rare as the breed is.
Have’nt you seen how helen looks at disdain at Kiwis at the opera.
There time is slowly coming to an end
September 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
that wasn’t sposed to be a smiley face ,,
let’s just say its Helens at the sight of extinct Kiwis
September 21st, 2007 at 4:21 am
Roger
You are pretty much 100% wrong today mate
“Bullshit – the oil shocks of the early 1980s cause inflation and growth in unemployment from about 1983 onwards – where were the boom times?”
http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/national/1199gdp/table6.htm
GDP Unemployment
1982 -1.9 9.7%
1983 4.2 9.6%
1984 7.3 7.5%
1985 3.9 7.2%
1986 3.4 7.0%
1987 3.5 6.2%
1988 4.2 5.5%
1989 3.5 5.3%
Unemployment figures from the US Dept of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statistics
“Bullshit – show me where the US economy contracted in the post 9/11 environment. Put up or shut up. ”
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2002/gdp302f.htm
1st Q 01 -0.6
2nd Q 01 -1.6
3rd Q 01 -0.3
2 consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth is considered by economists to be a recession. I said it was the dotcom collapse not just 9/11.
My original post was about the impact of ending open ended entitlement on welfare rolls in the US. You claimed the welfare rolls dropped in the US simply because of a growing economy. When I said the welfare rolls climbed through the strong economic conditions of the 1980’s you tried to say there were no such conditions but the official GDP and unemployment figures tell a different story.
The sickness benefit in NZ is relevant because there is no logical reason (apart from Labour’s soft policy regarding eligibility) why these figures have climbed so obviously when economic conditions should’ve dealt to them like they have to the unemployment rate.The Ministry of Social Development website http://www.msd.govt.nz shows that the numbers on the sickness benefit (that had been dramatically dropping in the last 3 years under the National Government) has risen from 35,051 in 1999 to 49,000 in Dec 06 (or a 40% increase). How many criminals listed in the courts section of NZ daily papers as having committed crimes that sick people should struggle to commit have listed as their occupation “sickness or invalids beneficiary”. I bet a much higher percentage than the approx 1.2% of NZ’s population that are on the sickness benefit.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:03 am
my issue with our welfare system is that it does not incentivise people to actively seek work, in fact quite the reverse. It’s irresponsible to reward young mothers to breed numerous children that they can’t look after and don’t know how to be a responsible parent
A condition of benefit should be parenting skills, attendance at school, etc and any non conformance or criminal conviction results in reduction of benefit. These kids that are not brought up properly are where all our future problems lie and it’s the state’s fault
September 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
kia – excellent post. thank you.
virginblogger – all comes down to the definition of ‘brought up properly’. you and probably share the same definition, that of becoming well balanced productive members of society who help grow new zealand economically, culturally and socially.
The other definition sees the welfare dependent (and the more the merrier) as subjugated voter lemmings and tools for the justification of removal of wealth from the ‘rich’. It is the poor and the marginalised who are the socialists ticket to continued power. So the more they breed, the better is the attitude.
Our job is just to shut up and pay. And shut up and pay. And shut up and pay …
September 21st, 2007 at 11:43 am
KIA,
I know you’re heart is in the right place and I agree that the current form of our welfare system nor the so-called “progressive” income taxation is doing the most disadvantaged in our society no favours, but neither are the so-called neo-liberal policies that have dictated New Zealand economic direction over the last 23 years.
Unlike you guys I am aware of the flaws in the current economic and financial system that determines the living standards of people in this country and of alternatives to it.
Personally I would favour a alternative currency scheme such as the Local Trading and Exchange Scheme (LETS) or a time bound money scheme similar to the time dollar system to replace Welfare Payments, because a) due to the flaws in our economic and finance system there is inadequate money in the system to meet everyones needs adequately, which is why everyone is so dependant on consumer finance these days and is heavily slanted to favour those who own property b) in the current welfare system there is no obligation to anyone else other than to prove that you’re at least trying to find work in order to get a payout each week, whilst in the above alternatives, your purchasing power is determined by how much you help others c) it would divest people of dependance on the heavily centralized authority (Central Government), and c) it would encourage mutual dependance and community solidarity and perhaps cure the social ills that are a result of the above flaws.
http://www.letslinkuk.org/
http://www.ces.org.za/docs/advantages.htm
For one thing, even the inventors of GDP admit is a poor indicator of the economic health of a country and since we have superior indicators like the Genuine Progress Indicator and the UN Human Development Index, so I wonder why anyone uses GDP and GNP.
Oh I know its, so politicians and neoliberal devotees can use such a distortionary, aggregate statistic that is heavily slanted to favour the wealthy so they can go on pretending that their policies are a raging success, rather than a dismal failure.
Apart from that I wouldn’t take US government economic statistics as gospel if I were you.
“Neither the Kaiser Foundation nor the Post understood that there was and still is good reason for the gap between common perceptions and government reporting: government data are biased in politically correct directions and increasingly have diverged from common experience and reality since the mid-1980s”
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs/article/id=340
September 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“When I said the welfare rolls climbed through the strong economic conditions of the 1980’s you tried to say there were no such conditions but the official GDP and unemployment figures tell a different story.”
Your figures prove me right there – an average of 7% unemployment during the 1980s isn’t what you can call “boom times” in a country that has a long-run average of less than 5% unemployment.
“http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2002/gdp302f.htm
1st Q 01 -0.6
2nd Q 01 -1.6
3rd Q 01 -0.3
2 consecutive quarter of negative GDP growth is considered by economists to be a recession. I said it was the dotcom collapse not just 9/11.”
Good to see that you finally stump up with some evidence for your claims.
“The sickness benefit in NZ is relevant because there is no logical reason (apart from Labour’s soft policy regarding eligibility) why these figures have climbed so obviously when economic conditions should’ve dealt to them like they have to the unemployment rate.”
So? We have one of the highest employment rates in the OECD – our labour market strategy has been very successful at creating jobs and getting people into work (certainly much more successful than the USA). In fact NZ ranks 5th in the OECD – and the only countries that rank above us are social democratic countries (despite having generous unemployment benefit levels). The USA’s labour market strategy on the other hand has been a relative failure – and consequently they rank only 10th in the OECD for employment rate. In fact the, despite all of their mean spirited benefit cuts the USA has had zero growth in employment rate since 1992 – they’ve merely reduced the number of people on the unemployment benefit through kicking them off it!
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/24/38335554.pdf
You see – people will work if the work is available- it has little to do with whether an unemployment benefit is available to them or not. This is why New Zealand had virtually no unemployment during the 1950s and 1960s – despite the unemployment benefit being available, this is why the social democracies have the highest employment rates despite having strong community consciousness and generous unemployment benefit levels.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Roger Nome
Have you spoken to H2 about working with the 9th Floor spin doctors. Only you could call the 1980’s record of unemployment dropping from over 9% in 1981 to just over 5% in 1989 abysmal. Nice try. Unemployment in the US is currently at 4.4% (a record low) so the figure by 1989 was marginally above that.
Please explain the 40% rise in the NZ sickness benefit despite such rosy economic conditions while similar economies (Australia and UK) showed reductions of the same benefit over the same period. Since NZ has done so well with employment growth why this glaring anomoly?
Interesting how you selectively use the OECD stats to make your beloved social democracies seem so wonderful. It would appear that social democracies such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria and France all rank below the US. One of the highest ranked is Switzerland (2nd only to Iceland and 3% higher than NZ) and Switzerland is a very low tax and low government spending capitalist economy without the huge welfare states of the 6 countries listed above. And the highest increase in employment – Ireland another low tax high growth economy. So actually only 3 ’social democracies’ rank higher than the US – Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
The unemployment benefit available in NZ in the 1950’s was not open ended like it is today. In fact the welfare state compared to what it is today was minute. A very tightly targetted and means tested OAP and sickness benefit. No ACC, no DPB, no Youth Benefit,
September 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Roger – I forgot, Sweden is your wet dream country that you wish NZ was like. The darling of the university socialist set that I believe you are either a member of or furiously studying to become a member of.
September 21st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
“Only you could call the 1980’s record of unemployment dropping from over 9% in 1981 to just over 5% in 1989 abysmal.”
Unemployment in the 1980s (averaged out) was historically high for the US – it wasn’t a “boom time’ as you claim – that’s all I’m saying, nothing else.
“Please explain the 40% rise in the NZ sickness benefit despite such rosy economic conditions while similar economies (Australia and UK) showed reductions of the same benefit over the same period.”
Why? It’s irrelevant. What is relevant is the employment rate – that is the key measure of labour market policy success – it’s about getting people into jobs – not what type of benefit a small minority of the working age population are on.
” It would appear that social democracies such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Austria and France all rank below the US.”
So? Many social democracies rank above the US. The point is that employing punitive benefit cuts doesn’t achieve increased employment rate – it doesn’t get people into jobs -remember between the years of 1992-2005 (the period where benefits were savagely cut) the USA had zero growth in employment rate.
“And the highest increase in employment – Ireland another low tax high growth economy.”
Another country with relatively generous unemployment benefits – and centralised collective bargaining – in other words a social democracy. You also forget to mention Iceland – another social democracy which has a higher employment rate than the USA – so in fact 5 social democracies have a higher employment rate than the USA.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:03 pm
The average GDP growth in the 1980’s was quite strong and certainly above the average for the preceding two decades. Despite the growth and gradually lowering unemployment rates, welfare dependency kept rising. You were trying to link lowering benefit numbers to economic growth and the 80’s in the US belie your theory. Despite the mild post dotcom and 9/11 recession, poverty rates kept declining.
Please explain Switzerland’s high employment rate ranking. Oh and more social democracies rank below the US than above it.
The employment rate is but one statistic and the one that favours your meme. There is job growth (which has been high and strong in the US), there is the fall in unemployment and the fall in poverty rates especially the drop in black poverty and particularly of black children that tell a more powerful story. There was the huge rise the employment rate of solo mothers (100%) so citing one OECD comparison doesn’t tell the full story. Remember Roger people like you predicted a huge rise in poverty and all sorts of other ‘the sky will fall down’ predictions when the ‘95 welfare reforms were passed. It didn’t happen – poverty went down and you try to explain it away by saying economic growth alone did that. Studies show that moving people from welfare to work reduces crime, increases child self esteem, reduces the likelihood of crime and dysfunctional behaviour in the children of those who move from welfare to work and then there is the reversal of the rise in teen pregnancy rates.
NZ still has entrenched welfare dependency with some families with 3rd generation beneficiaries. It is not a co-incidence that some of the horrific public child abuse cases involve welfare dependent families. The same horror stories do still go on the US but not with the same frequency as before. Welfare reform is not perfect and it is not a panacea for all societal ills by any means but it has shown proven results and has won many converts who were former skeptics because there have been so many noticeable benefits.
September 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“The average GDP growth in the 1980’s was quite strong and certainly above the average for the preceding two decades. Despite the growth and gradually lowering unemployment rates, welfare dependency kept rising.”
No – unemployment declined along with the post-recession catch-up – economists have observed that unemployment tends to follow the business cycle – pretty simple really.
” Studies show that moving people from welfare to work reduces crime, increases child self esteem, reduces the likelihood of crime and dysfunctional behaviour in the children of those who move from welfare to work and then there is the reversal of the rise in teen pregnancy rates.”
Sure – but the US’s punitive benefit cuts haven’t achieved this – there has been zero growth in employment rate since 1992.
“The employment rate is but one statistic and the one that favours your meme. There is job growth”
Job growth in the states has only just kept up with growth in working age population – so there has been no increase in employment rate since the benefit cuts. Conclusion job growth has been inadequate since the benefit cuts.
“there is the fall in unemployment”
So you kick some people off the dole – and your unemployment rate decreases. This means that you’ve got the same proportion of your working age population working – but you’ve got more who have no source of income – hardly a tale of success. Considering this, it’s difficult to see how there would be a lower proportion of people in poverty now than before the benefit cuts (But then again if you could produce some proof of your claims I might be more inclined to believe you) especially when one considers that wages have dropped for most workers in the us since 2000.
“NZ still has entrenched welfare dependency with some families with 3rd generation beneficiaries. ”
But we have a higher employment rate and a lower employment rate than the US – how can you say that their labour market strategy has been better than ours at creating jobs?
“It is not a co-incidence that some of the horrific public child abuse cases involve welfare dependent families.”
But we have the second lowest unemployment in the OECD – yet we have higher violent crime figures than most countries. This proves that there is much more to our crime problem than “welfare dependency”.
The US has decreased its crime levels through having 6-10 times as many people in prison per population in comparison to European countries. Now I know that you think that this is a success – but throwing 6 times as many people on the social scrap heap as any other country in the OECD, to me this is a huge failure, and is a shocking indictment of the way the US functions as a society – I know you couldn’t care less about those people though – as long as you have you’re comfy upper-middle class job and the police are protecting your relatively privileged position in society who gives a shit about those who fall through the cracks right?
See yall – gotta go now.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
I really enjoyed reading that information roger. Shame you had to end it with a dig like that.