Fighting the battles of 17 years ago

March 28th, 2008 at 7:28 am by David Farrar

No wonder church attendances keep dropping. The main NZ churches are campaigning for the 1991 benefit cuts to be reversed.

While it is true that Labour have never reversed them, it is idiotic to be so backward looking.

And they even rubbish their own arguments:

Mr Kendrew is now a volunteer budget adviser in Wellington and said even working families on low incomes were struggling with recent price increases for food, petrol and other essentials.

Okay so a non-benefit family in 2008 is finding life tough due to *recent* price increases, and the Rt Revs think the answer is linked to a change in benefit rates 17 years ago.

“I’m dealing with a family at the moment with an income of $680 a week, paying $300 a week in rent.

Well income related rents for state houses means they should pay no more than $170 a week. If they are not in a state house, then the solution seems obvious.

Tags: ,

132 Responses to “Fighting the battles of 17 years ago”

  1. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the degree of cynicism you display in this post is breathtaking..

    and of course..

    your stance wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact you were at shipleys/richardsons shoulders when they ‘dealt to’ the weakest/poorest/most vulnerable..

    urging them to ‘cut more!’..

    would it..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [DPF: Yes as the Young Nationals National Secretary and an administration assistant in the Red Cross, I was at the heart of power in the Government in 1991!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. pushmepullu (686 comments) says:

    DPF do you really think income related rents in state houses has anything to do with solutions? It just drives housing prices up further.

    [DPF: Not sure that it does. There are many arguments against income related state house rents but that isn't one of them as far as I know]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,834 comments) says:

    Nothing is quite so laughable or bizarre, as church leaders who are incapable of growing their own organisations, telling the gummint of the day how to run the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    perhaps our “christian” community could get back to believing in God and focusing on supporting families and the moral fabric of society?

    nah, too hard, best to worry about self esteem courses, climate change and indulgent soft left politics. Perhaps time for another hikoi – the hikoi of we all deserve big televisions and handouts?

    Its very sad that the only congregations growing in this country are the PI churches and the evangelists. Mainstream religion has repeatedly demonstrated its only purpose is to give the congenitally soft headed somewhere warm to eat their wine biscuits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Couldn’t agree more DPF. An Anglican church ceremony I attended recently was awful – I couldn’t get over how the Vicar was all about social engineering, state intervention and climate change, neglecting to mention the word “God” in his sermon. The fidgeting and checking of text messages in church by the under 35 year olds in attendence was remarkable. If people turn up to church, it would be nice if the pastor would bother to say something religious instead of droning on about the social implications of climate change on the local vestry.

    However, I’m sure the very same Anglican pastor would have bitterly resisted any suggestions that their Melanesian Trust, which owns prime property throughout the wealthy Eastern Suburbs of Auckland, should get out of residential home ownership and use the money to plant more trees to offset the carbon emissions of unbelievers.

    Frankly, its no surprise that the religious youth of today are more inspired by fire-brand born again preachers of the “Life Church” or Destiny ilk, because these preachers actually stand for something religious and have an inspiring mien about them, though their beliefs are extreme on some social issues, ie intolerance towards gays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    nigel6888, one startling exception being LIFE Live! in Auckland under Paul and Maree de Jong. Their reach programs are stupendous and seeing those people work so hard to improve communities across the world.

    http://www.lifelive.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    perhaps our ‘christians’ should just get back to their worship of the dollar..eh adolf..?

    fuck those (supposed) christian ideals of ‘help’/charity/responsibility..eh..?

    what would jesus think/say..?

    eh adolf..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. frog (84 comments) says:

    Interesting theory DPF. If a policy that’s not working like the 1991 benefit cuts stays in place for a decade an a half its longevity is enough to justify its existence. Otherwise you are ‘backwards looking’. Historically obviously we wouldn’t apply this theory to slavery, women’s right to vote or nuclear free policy. Seems to have some interesting connotations in modern times though as well for a National Party wanting to replace a longstanding Labour Govt. How many entrenched policies have they brought in that you would now consider entrenched.
    Of course, from a Green perspective there are a lot of people outside of Labour and National who have never had any chance to entrench any of their policies, so this concept of yours seems determined to exclude them from political influence.

    [DPF: You are welcome to campaign on spending decisions made 17 years ago. I hope you will also campaign on stopping the Clyde Dam]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dad4justice (7,988 comments) says:

    Every act is a boomerang. Do kind ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    Phil – If Jesus were alive he’d be telling you to stay off the drugs and would forgive you your sins.

    I doubt he would tolerate much the modern pharisees of organised mainstream religion who want the government to force people to hand over money, instead of being charitable of their own volition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    Mr Kendrew is now a volunteer budget adviser in Wellington and said even working families on low incomes were struggling with recent price increases for food, petrol and other essentials.

    Perhaps Mr Kendrew and these church leaders could ask God to rain on Australia (thereby increasing the wheat supply and reducing the price of bread), smote all those trouble makers reducing oil production and collapse global prices for dairy products.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    ah yes, self help, Christian charity, strong families, prudent behaviour, hard work, strong ethics. These are all things phule would like to see more of?

    I don’t think jesus had much truck for self indulgent pothead bludgers – but as someone above suggested, repent, clean up, live healthily, contribute to society productively, and you will be welcomed into the christian community.

    Except there isnt a christian community anymore. On one hand its the handwringing anglicans, and on the other the snake oil salesmen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Frog
    “Of course, from a Green perspective there are a lot of people outside of Labour and National who have never had any chance to entrench any of their policies, so this concept of yours seems determined to exclude them from political influence.”

    The Green party are outside Labour and National. Kind of you Frog to admit the Greens are totally ineffectual. No wonder you get called Poodles.
    If you felt so strongly about this why did you not withdraw confidence and supply and threaten to bring this govt down?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    good point Craig, its about time for a bit more smiting. Perhaps those who are encouraging governments and companies to buy up world food supplies to expensively turn them into biofuel could be added to the list?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    Captain Crab: If you felt so strongly about this why did you not withdraw confidence and supply and threaten to bring this govt down?

    Because like their cohorts, the Labour Party, the Green Party care about nothing as much as staying in power and dictating to others how they should live their lives. They are nothing more than meddlesome communists and Labour aids them in their agenda to force their corrupt, foolish ideology upon New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..sushi..

    jesus would tell me to stop smoking pot..eh..?

    what do you make of psalms 17.213

    “..he bringeth forth grass for the cattle..and green herb for the service of men..

    that he may bring food out of the earth..and wine that maketh glad the heart of man..and oil to make him a cheerful countenance..and bread to strengthen mans’ heart’..”

    now..i dunno about you..but i take two things from that..

    one..that we aren’t told that thecattle are there ‘for the service of man’..

    and that ‘green herb’..?

    how can that not be hemp/pot..?

    and the many and varied ways it is consumed..

    (‘oil to make him a cheerful countenance’..indeed..!..)

    (and if your are looking for an environmental-exhortation/warning’ from the bible..?

    17.210 should ‘do it’..

    “..the days of man are but as grass..for he flourisheth as a flower of the field..

    for as soon as the wind goeth over it..it is gone..

    ..and the place thereof shall know it no more..”

    (whoar..!..eh..?

    nurture the ‘flower’..and watch out for that ‘wind’..

    eh..?

    and use that ‘erb’..mon..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. frog (84 comments) says:

    The greens have not given confidence or supply for 5.5 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Since the socialists and commie greens like to look even further back than 17 years and suggest to the population that today’s National Party are the exact same people and policies, I guess the churches are pretty intelligent in comparison.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (858 comments) says:

    sophistry frog (quelle surprise)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dad4justice (7,988 comments) says:

    Frog the greens are selfish self centered utopian freaks, who are lap poodles for the corrupt Labour Party. If your party had any decency you would realize that New Zealanders are sick and tired of a bunch of political misfits who continually blow hot air. If this country is to go forward then we first must release the handbrake of political – egotistical deluded fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    “The greens have not given confidence or supply for 5.5 years.”

    Good I’m glad you choose to spin it like that. Now the full responsibility of all their decisions can be laid at their feet and the price to pay will be all theirs. Say bye bye to the commie greens come October. And not a moment too soon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Craig Ranapia (1,915 comments) says:

    good point Craig, its about time for a bit more smiting.

    We could also see churches following Christ’s admonition to ““Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21) by surrendering any faith-based tax exemptions. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    My view of religion is that it is all a total load of rubbish as it has all been ‘made up’ by man (and mainly to suit whoever was it power at the time).

    I think the debate here illustrates my point. You have the left wing Christians saying it is all about charity and looking after your fellow man and the right wing Christians saying, screw that, it is all about me and how much money I can make (as well as telling you what you can do, when you can do it and to who).

    Strange thing is Christians all believe in the same God! If Christians can’t agree even on the basic stuff then what is the point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Sushi Goblin (419 comments) says:

    If taxpayers are expected to contribute to social engineering and welfarist growth at the insistence of organised religion, perhaps Craig is right, the churches should lose all their tax exempt status so they can also contribute to state run welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dad4justice (7,988 comments) says:

    Rocket Boy the Bible is very clear on matters of charity and money, however man made churches each have different interpretations that suit their various agendas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dan (44 comments) says:

    If churches are going to adhere to the teaching of the bible, then the burden is really on them to support the ‘widow and the orphan’.
    Before there was any state-provided welfare, it was the church that supported the impoverished.
    Did the church get lazy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. radvad (706 comments) says:

    As a hard core “born again”, this stuff gives me the heebie jeebies. The Anglican church is one of the wealthiest institutions on the country yet they continually demand that other people do their job for them.

    The Good Samaritan was not a bureaucrat driving around in a tax funded car handed out lolly taken from other people. He was an individual who used his own resources to meet an immediate need. Interestingly he did not give his money directly to the wounded traveller but to the innkeeper to pay for future needs. The Anglicans could learn much from this example alone, not to mention St Paul’s (from memory) admonition “if you don’t work you don’t eat”.

    There is nothing Christian about making people dependent on others when they have the ability to help themselves. As Abe Lincoln said “you cannot help people by doing for them what they could and should be doning for themselves”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i think they ‘forgot’..dan..

    in the main..the churches don’t ‘give’..

    they ‘take’/build their empires/’numbers’..

    that is their main priority..

    and that social disengagement..and clinging to individualism/celebration of the individual/self..

    is one of the main reasons the mainstream churches are dying/becoming increasingly irrelevant..

    they have ‘lost their way’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    and of course that ‘disconnect’..is mirrored/echoed..

    by those other ‘christians’..

    who are opposed..on moral grounds..to abortion..

    and from the other side of their mouths..

    exhort the government to take away any state support for those mothers who chose not to abort..

    ..and to raise their children in (mainly) straightened circumstances..

    eh..?

    (c.f…the preceeding comment by radvad..eh..?..

    a ‘hard core born again’..

    ..devoid of any charitable thoughts to alleviate the sufferings of the worst-off..

    his/her self-contradictions render his/her words meaningless/irrelevant..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Waymad (136 comments) says:


    Fwog admonishes the eeevil benefit cuts from – oh – before many current beneficiaries started school. Those cuts were partly about changing perceptions and expectations: the world doesn’t owe you a living, arrange your life to be responsible, aim to live free of dependencies of all sorts.

    Well, that Was the intention.

    But wait a mo’ – let’s look at some Fwoggy Policy:

    - ‘taking responsibility for ourselves and our environment’ (So why not be responsible for your own destiny instead of submitting to continued infantilisation at the hands of an uncaring State?)

    - Kicking the dependency on oil? (So, why is utter dependency, even unto the third generation – on State-supplied income – benefits or WFF – Different?)

    - Applying the Precautionary principle? (So, why not to the 16 year old and his 1995 $1 down Nissan Skyline?)

    Is it just me or is there a simply delicious contradiction here, between Green rhetoric and philosophy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Right on Dan.

    Phil U – at what point are benefits and social spending enough? Do you think that the government should redistribute up to the point where everyone has the same amount of money? Because if so you should understand that a lot of people will stop working.

    Frankly I struggle to be motivated as it is – having gone to University, and then having had the obligatory low paid years early on in my chosen career, I find that as soon as I am finally getting paid a reasonable amount the government starts taking it all – before I have even caught up all the opportunity cost of getting to this point – to give it to some lazy shit who (and read this carefully) has the exact same level of wealth as me – i.e. zero. Where’s the justice in that you pillock?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. radvad (706 comments) says:

    “..devoid of any charitable thoughts to alleviate the sufferings of the worst-off..”

    Phil, you self righteous prig, you have no idea what I think about individual charity, nor what I do with my money. And you are a person of obvious ability who chooses to live off the efforts of others. This holier than thou stuff sounds totally bizarre coming from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dave (986 comments) says:

    strange thing is Christians all believe in the same God! If Christians can’t agree even on the basic stuff then what is the point?
    Sounds like the Labour Party at the moment. What is the point indeed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    it’s ‘just you’..waymad..the tint in your spectacles irrevocably ‘colours’ your views on such matters..

    ross..those mothers/fathers that choose to raise/care for their children..as sole parents..

    should be provided with enough to give them a life not devoid of the basic dignities..

    that’d be a baseline to start from..

    (i would suggest a look at the ‘swedish-model’..that the actites seems suddenly so (selectively)fond of..(go figure!..eh?)..)

    the current benefits do not do/provide this..

    and it will be a big stain on the history of these nine years of this labour government..

    their failure to right the wrongs/’evils’ wrought by shipley/richardson…

    (and of course..their deputy-dawg/’advisor’/exhorter..

    one david farrar..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    let me guess radvad..

    you give it to your ‘born-again’ church..

    you look inward..

    q.e.d…eh..?

    (close call..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Hold on Phil – I want to have kids but I want to save money first – if you tax me to give it to someone who had kids without thinking abut their finances that hardly seems fair. Maybe you need to read your post again because the key word in there is “choose”. They choose to have sex, which I believe has been shown by science to sometimes result in children, why should I pay for that? The whole point of that particular line of benefits is not the parent – it is aimed at the child who we rcognise as having an entitlement to a basic standard of living (which he or she can do nothing about obtaining for him or herself). Truth be told a lot of those kids would be better off it they were given to would be adoptive parents. Then the kid would get a nice middle class life and the biological mum or dad would learn that the state doesn’t give you money for not using protection.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    RocketBoy: as well as telling you what you can do, when you can do it and to who

    Of course yes! Because it’s those of a right wing persuasion that has given us the EFA and all the sundry restrictions on what you can do that has dumped the country into such a mess. If you examine the facts you might find that our current government, consisting primarily of the Labour Party and the Green Party are the authoritarian ones who try to regulate our lives through legislation.

    As to differences for Christians? Do we cease to be human because we disagree? Or can I only be a human being if I agree with leftist thinking? There are many flavours of Christianity and they all follow a variety of doctrinal differences. But underpinning that is man interpreting the word of God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so”ross..the children shall suffer/be taken from their parents..

    for the ‘sin’..of those parents not slapping on a condom..

    (what are your thoughts on children conceived after contraception-failure..?)

    a ‘christian’..are you ross..?’

    and a sorta black and white/nuance-free zone..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. big bruv (13,572 comments) says:

    Any system that lets the likes of Phul CHOOSE to bludge off the rest of us cannot be defended, the weak excuse of “raising” their kids just does not wash.

    Many people raise their kids alone and many of them hold down full time jobs at the same time, people like Phul are simply stealing money from the real people in need.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. RossK (277 comments) says:

    PhilU,

    Do you assert that all adoption is detrimental to the child?

    Children conceived after contraception failure and lack of abstinence. The point is the same – if the parent or parents can’t afford to give the kid a good life there are plenty of couples who are unable to have children who can.

    The point of adopting the child out is not to punish the parents – it is to help the child (based on the position that people shouldn’t be paid by the state for having children).

    Also, for those who are not opposed to it on philosophical or religious grounds, abortion is available.

    Why do my religious beliefs matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I use to be a regular church goer some 30 years ago but now frimly believe the church has been hijacked by brainwashed leftwing twits. Many policies released by so called church leaders are nothing more then the dribble that can be read on any leftwing manifesto. The church has lost it’s way, they like politicians of old use to live by a set of principles. In it’s rush to be something for everyone the church struggles to find something it truly stands for. But what I find most amusing is that many of the leftwing ideas church leaders now preach about come from a philosophy that has no place for a God except if the state is God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. radvad (706 comments) says:

    “let me guess radvad..

    you give it to your ‘born-again’ church..

    you look inward..”

    You are right Phil, it is only a guess. You then proceed to make assumptions to reflect your prejudices based on a guess. Typical leftie. As I said you have no idea what I do with my money, nor do you have any idea what the church I go to does with the money which is voluntarily given to it.

    You are a taker Phil and one of the worst kind in that you slag off those who are the real givers in our society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RossK (277 comments) says:

    As for your “a sorta black and white/nuance-free zone..eh..?” – no you are quite wrong. All systems need a certain amount of flexibility. Your position though is that anyone who has a child should be entitled to state support if they are not wealthy enough to support that child. Whereas my starting position is that they shoud not get state support and that if they cannot provide the necessities of life then they should have to give the child up for adoption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Winston Churchill put it very well about 100 years ago, very early in his career. He said something like, the difference between Christianity and Socialism, is that in Christianity, “all mine is yours”, whereas in Socialism, it is “all yours is mine”…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    What does “philu” say about what St Paul said, “if a man will not work, neither let him eat”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ropata (117 comments) says:

    Christianity does not confer a standardized set of political beliefs; the faith has a few basic creeds that most churches can agree on, but there is huge latitude for differences of opinion. But the Catholic faith consistently provides very thoughtful and balanced material, rather than off-the-cuff misinformed comments which form the basis of this blog. Here is part of their statement on Employment:
    “In recent years there has been much talk about the economy, especially the need to be economically competitive. We recognise that as a nation we must be efficient and effective and use our resources well. However, the State and the economy exist for the well-being of the people. The people do not exist for the well-being of the State and the economy. Policies and legislation regarding the economic life of the country must be shaped with this in mind.

    Many claim that, as a result of Government policies, the economy is in better shape than it was some thirteen years ago. Yet the working and living conditions of many have declined. It is timely to remind ourselves that according to the Church the worker is always more important than capital, for the workers are human persons. We wish to remind all New Zealanders of the rights which belong to all who work and those without work, and call on them and on all people of integrity to resist further erosion of the dignity of the worker, and the unemployed. We ask all to ensure that the fruits of reform are made available to all citizens and that all members of society have access to the goods which ensure a life consistent with human dignity.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Its good to see all these people here who get the point about the church, charity, and the welfare state. Before the welfare state, strange to say, even in the great depression nobody starved to death in Christian countries. Charity actually was able to cope with the small numbers of genuinely needy cases that occurred prior to the moral hazard of welfarism that incentivised snowballing increases in the numbers of the “needy”.

    Greenies have a theory how civilisations collapse. Over-exploitation of resources, blah, blah, blah. The role of moral tradition or its decline seems to escape them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ross said..

    “..The point of adopting the child out is not to punish the parents – it is to help the child (based on the position that people shouldn’t be paid by the state for having children)…”..(!!!)

    un-fucken-believable..!

    phil-the-inferior obviously believes that raising children is not ‘work’..

    ..and that babies/children should be placed in ‘day-care’..and the parent forced to ‘work’..

    instead of focussing on their children..

    (in your own words..eh phil-the-inferior..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    and going on your (preceeding) comment..you obviously need to ‘read more’..eh..?

    you have this totally distorted ‘rose-coloured’ view of the realities of poor-houses/debtors-prisons/’christian charity’..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RossK (277 comments) says:

    “moral hazard of welfarism that incentivised snowballing increases in the numbers of the “needy”.” sums it up pretty well. The real risk is that we might reach a tipping point where large strata of society give up because their standard of living from working is not appreciably better than people who don’t work at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Terry J (30 comments) says:

    Philu
    With monotonous regularity you have again achieved pure sophistry
    You have chosen to become a solo parent on a benefit
    Get yourself a job if the DPB is not enough and stop expecting taxpayers to pay for your choices.
    Can’t believe your suggestion that labour party success could be measured on how well the have looked after bloody bludger’s like yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    As for the Swedish model, philu, there are many factors that illustrate how the wheels invariably fall off the socialist utopia, but two points I have read recently have stuck in my mind. 1) Sweden has the highest rate of public debt per capita in the world. 2) Sweden has the highest rate of rape in Christendom. A woman is raped every 2 hours in Sweden.

    Schumpeter pointed out in 1946 that Swedish Socialism was working because of what the Swedes are, not because of what Socialism is. Swedes at one time would sooner have DIED than bludge off society or have kids out of wedlock. It has taken a lot longer for the effects of moral hazard to filter through Swedish society than it has in NZ or other countries. But filter through it well and truly has, and Sweden is now a shining example of those moral hazards, not the utopia that pigshit-thick lefties THINK it still is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RossK (277 comments) says:

    PhilU

    No mate. I believe that when I have kids I should pay for them myself. Why do you think that I should pay for someone else’s kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RossK (277 comments) says:

    TerryJ – do you know that or is it speculation?

    PhilU – do you understand that if nobody works then nobody eats?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..[DPF: Yes as the Young Nationals National Secretary and an administration assistant in the Red Cross, I was at the heart of power in the Government in 1991!]..”

    dpf..correct me if i’m wrong..but i have memories of you..in this forum..

    bemoaning the fact that at the time you worked for them..

    that they failed to heed your exhortations to ‘cut more’ from beneficiaries..

    a ‘false memory’..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RossK (277 comments) says:

    So PhilU – not able to answer my questions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    that’s right ross..’unable to answer your question..’

    irrational fool..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. ropata (117 comments) says:

    It is surreal to see such a post from DPF, whereas I have heard many atheists claim that churches would be a lot more credible if they pursued social justice as vigorously as the Salvation Army. I fail to see how a social justice agenda has much to do with declining attendances. As far as I can tell, the churches in decline are those whose leadership is confused and losing the foundations of the faith — ie. belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    DPF:

    We have amongst the highest level of income inequality in the OECD and consequently among the lowest levels of social mobility in the OECD (yes the two variables are near perfectly correlated across the 27 countries) and social dislocation resulting in high crime levels (especially petty theft) and imprisonment rates (once again almost perfectly correlated).

    Either we need to bring back the Awards system (my favored option), or increase benefits in order to reverse these social problems. That is if you care at all about these issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Which of the following questions is irrational PhilU?

    1at what point are benefits and social spending enough? Do you think that the government should redistribute up to the point where everyone has the same amount of money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Which of the following questions is irrational PhilU?

    1 at what point are benefits and social spending enough? Do you think that the government should redistribute up to the point where everyone has the same amount of money?

    2 They choose to have sex, which I believe has been shown by science to sometimes result in children, why should I pay for that?

    3 Do you assert that all adoption is detrimental to the child?

    4 Why do my religious beliefs matter?

    5 No mate. I believe that when I have kids I should pay for them myself. Why do you think that I should pay for someone else’s kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK:

    “No mate. I believe that when I have kids I should pay for them myself. Why do you think that I should pay for someone else’s kids?”

    People who believe in social justice usually believe that every human being deserves a fair shot at material success. Regardless of how poor the family they’re born into is. Now you’ll site a few examples of rags to riches stories – but the statistics show that social mobility is negatively correlated with income inequality. That you can’t escape.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Captain Crab (351 comments) says:

    Frog
    “The greens have not given confidence or supply for 5.5 years.”

    You dont vote, if you voted No Confidence, you would bring them down. But you dont. You do nothing.
    woof woof

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Gee, you really are all heart he DPF -

    In your perfect market things like social disadvantage are just neatly swept aside/forgotten. Or as thacture purportedly said “society doesn’t exist”. Such is the brutal simplicity of the world you inhabit…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    nome said…

    “..but the statistics show that social mobility is negatively correlated with income inequality. That you can’t escape..”

    all of which proves that rightwingers who aren’t rich..(hi ross..!..)

    are just dumbfuck suckers..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Roger Nome, If you have read my posts through this thread you will see that I believe the same thing. There is a problem with what you write though. Firstly if a person or a couple is so poor that they need support in order to be able to provide the necessities of life they will need an awful lot more money to give their kid a “fair shot” compared to some kid from a rich family. Secondly, the argument on this thread has been about whether someone should be entitled to state support solely by virtue of having had kids? Now I understand that you think the kid (who is not responsible for his or her parent’s circumstances) should have a fair shot. My argument though is that such a kid would have better prospects if adopted by a family that has no need for state support. Let me be clear – this is not a proposal that kids be “taken away”. I am simply saying that as a general proposition having a kid should not entitle a parent to state support – if our concern is truly with the child then, for the most part, the kid might be better off without the deadbeat parent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. RossK (277 comments) says:

    PhilU, you still haven’t answered my questions.

    “nome said…

    “..but the statistics show that social mobility is negatively correlated with income inequality. That you can’t escape..”

    all of which proves that rightwingers who aren’t rich..(hi ross..!..)

    are just dumbfuck suckers..”

    So what are you saying PhilU – because I am not rich I should agree with you that we should soak both the rich, and people like me who aren’t rich but don’t want to take something for nothing? What is your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Or do you think calling me a “dumbfuck sucker” is a cogent argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..i guess the inference is of me as a ‘deadbeat dad’..seeing as i have raised my son while on a domestic purposes benefit..

    i could note he got his first school report from his new (high)school..last night..

    the three highest grades are good..v.good..excellent..

    he had excellents/v.goods..

    his lowest grade was (one) ‘good’..

    so..blow it out your arse..!

    eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK

    ” Now I understand that you think the kid (who is not responsible for his or her parent’s circumstances) should have a fair shot. My argument though is that such a kid would have better prospects if adopted by a family that has no need for state support.”

    Regardless of the ethical problems with your idea, it has serious practical issues.

    1) Are you aware that nearly half of our country’s children probably live in houses that receive income support (DPB, WFF, community services card etc…)? So where do you think you’re going to find the willling adopters?

    2) Most people would view this as inhumane. No democracy will ever pass a law that enables this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Or do you think calling me a “dumbfuck sucker” is a cogent argument?..”

    no..it’s an accurate observation..nothing more..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Or maybe those of us who work to support the like of you (PhilU) are dumbfuck suckers for letting leeches like you live off our work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Why PhilU? You haven’t actually refuted any of my points. You have just name called. Let me get this straight – you think a tax payer is a dumb fuck – because he is a tax payer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. LabourMustBeLiquidated (288 comments) says:

    The benefit could do with been a bit more Dave. Come on mate, fairs fair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    And when people no longer get married……….and there used to be marriages between different socio-economic groups……….and someone whose mum (or dad) came from a poor family, ended up with an undeprived upbringing and gets to inherit a share of some wealthy grandads fortune………..when all this no longer happens………..inequality increases……….

    DUUHHHHH !!!!!!!! DUUHHHH !!!!! DUUHHHH !!!!!!

    It’s called “society shooting itself in the foot”, and Leftist ideology is the main culprit every time……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    BTW – the graph on page 46 of the following link shows the relationship between income inequality and social mobility.

    http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf

    Now Ross -I’m not advocating flat income distribution (i.e. communism). That would destroy productive incentives. I reckon Australia and Canada have it about right though. Reasonable levels of income inequality, very good economic performance, and high levels of social mobility (most kids are getting a fair shot a success).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Ross K: WELL SAID, MAN. “If nobody works, nobody eats”……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Terry J (30 comments) says:

    RossK
    You will have a better understanding of Philu when you realize that he merely loiter’s on this blog posting comments as practice for when some mindless fool eventually decides to post a comment on his own ridiculous blog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Roger,

    I know that there are many practical difficulties with it. But when you get right down to it my argument is that there is too much state support of people because they have children.

    Don’t you think that if nearly half our chldren live in house sthat receive income support that thre must be too much income support – how can social welfare be characterised as a safety net when it is so pervasive.

    The state doesn’t need to pass a law that enables this. It alrady exists. A parent must provide the necessities of life. If they don’t then their children will be taken away from them. I would never dream of having kids unless I could support them. Why should others have kids and ask me (or anyone else) to support them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Also RossK – you should know that personal income tax is actually very low in NZ

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

    And before anyone goes decrying wikipedia as a reference source, look at there the figures come from… The OECD. Doesn’t get much more reputable than that.

    http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Roger, trust me I know that our society is a lot further away from being a meritocracy than the rich would have us believe! From personal observation I have seen that the children of the rich do better because of their parents’ social capital and because they can take risks in life and make investments (in educating themselves and in other ways) knowing that they have the safety net of mom and dad.

    Lord knows I have seen in the last few years many young people who have become wealthy from house ownership that they only had because they had family assistance to get their foot on the ladder. Suddenty those people are worth 100K more than someone who didn’t get on the ladder. What is worse is that such a silver spoon recipient eventually comes to believe that their prosperity id mostly down to them rather than their lucky start.

    heres the problem though – any cure is probably worse than the disease. One thing I do like is the increasing minimum wage. despite what the right says I think that a high(ish) minimum wage is good for society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK:

    “Don’t you think that if nearly half our children live in house sthat receive income support that thre must be too much income support – how can social welfare be characterised as a safety net when it is so pervasive.”

    In Australia the Awards system serves the same function by flattening off wage differentials between high skilled and low skilled jobs. A kind of proactive income redistribution. In any case, I think the graph shows nicely that income redistribution is needed if we’re to achieve the socially just end of high social mobility levels.

    BTW – I think your idea to rip hundreds of thousands of babies away from their mother’s and fathers, simply so you get to pay a little less tax is barbaric, and shows you have a very low level of emotional maturity/empathy. I feel sorry for the people who have to live with the consequences of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Zassfrank Dooselinch Van Der Schmutterkampf (1 comment) says:

    Are these churches registered in terms of the Electoral Finance Act?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    I posted a lot of Charles Murray quotes and article links in an earlier argument of this nature. Basically, the stigma of solo parenthood was a “social construct” (to borrow the lefties own language) that evolved as a basic societal survival mechanism. In ancient societies, if you had increasing numbers of fatherless kids that everybody else had to support, it was possible to reach a point where the society just plain couldn’t sustain it. That point will be much higher in the modern era due to the greater productivity we enjoy, but there must be a point nevertheless.

    That there is a connection between the rate of solo-parent children and future crime rates is only denied now by the most dissembling lefties. This is not only because of the effect of children growing up without the full natural range of nurture, but because there is a generation of shiftless, irresponsible, sexual predator males who are no longer expected to carry any responsibility for the continuance of society via the responsibilities of fatherhood. Young women to whom children are merely a meal ticket are not a good look either.

    We are reaping the consequences of our failure to be tough in the face of reality. Something that the leftist establishment is in denial over, is that societies HAVE collapsed this way before. The politically correct approach is that societies collapse because of irresponsible use of resources. I could quite believe that a society already in MORAL collapse would cease to husband its resources responsibly, too……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “That there is a connection between the rate of solo-parent children and future crime rates is only denied now by the most dissembling lefties.”

    Ever considered that many of these people had bust-ups in their relationships for a reason? i.e. they’re emotionally unstable, and so will often be worse parents than their married/partnered counterparts – thus the correlation. Just a thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Philbest – all opinion, no facts or figures. As usual, your level of contribution is disappointing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Gooner (995 comments) says:

    Rogernome said:

    “BTW – I think your idea to rip hundreds of thousands of babies away from their mother’s and fathers, simply so you get to pay a little less tax is barbaric, and shows you have a very low level of emotional maturity/empathy. I feel sorry for the people who have to live with the consequences of that.”

    So Rogernome tacitly accepts that under 9 yrs of Labour we have hundreds of thousands of babies that aren’t being cared for despite record growth, record taxation and increasing WFF entitlements. His answer to that? More entitlements and more welfare.

    Staggering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RossK (277 comments) says:

    BTW – I think your idea to rip hundreds of thousands of babies away from their mother’s and fathers, simply so you get to pay a little less tax is barbaric, and shows you have a very low level of emotional maturity/empathy. I feel sorry for the people who have to live with the consequences of that.

    Not at all Rogernome. We don’t need to rip kids away from people. I just don’t want to pay for other peoples kids to the leve that YOU think I should.

    I simply have made the point that if people can’t support their own children then there may well be others out there who can (and would be more than happy to). Frankly I think your view of a child as a possession entitling the holder to a benefit is a bit offensive myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Gooner – that kind of rhetorical BS might cut it over at “nominister” – but you’re at KB now :-) You’re going to have to do a little better than that I’m afraid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Rogernome – if there is too much income rdistribution then there isn’t much call for social mobility is there? The problem here is one of definition. It is a bit like the left wanting to abolish poverty (which they define as being in some bottom percentage of the population in terms of income / wealth rather than by reference to actual objective things such as shelter, food, etc)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK

    “Frankly I think your view of a child as a possession entitling the holder to a benefit is a bit offensive myself.”

    My view is that many jobless people make great parents (look at PhilU) – and that haven their children taken off them by the state, for the sakes of saving a few bucks for the one dimensional money minds like yourself, would cause both the the parents and the children great emotional pain. The fact that you see the extra few bucks in your pocket as more important makes me think your brain’s missing out on something we humans call “empathy”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK – relative poverty matters. The social dislocation/alienation that it causes has obvious social effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “if there is too much income rdistribution then there isn’t much call for social mobility is there?”

    Yes – i merely suggest that Australia is closer to the correct balance than we are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    i.e. NZ is one of the more inequitable countries in the OECD…

    the Gini coefficient.55 Gini coefficients measure income inequality, with a score of 100 indicating perfect inequality and a score of 0 indicating perfect equality. Around the year 2000, New Zealand’s score of 33.9 indicated higher inequality than the OECD median (30.1) and a ranking of 18th out of 25 countries. Northern European countries had the least income inequality, with Denmark having the lowest Gini coefficient of 22.5. New Zealand’s score was slightly higher than those for Canada (30.1), Australia (30.5) and the United Kingdom (32.6), and lower than that for the United States (35.7).56 The 2004 figure for New Zealand was 33.5.

    http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/economic-standard-living/income-inequality.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Rogernome, you refuse to address my point. I don’t propose an active policy of taking children off parents. I propose that people shouldn’t be given money by the state just because they have kids. Two totally different arguments. I want to have kids. I don’t expect someone else to pay for them. That seems fair to me. What do you think?

    I agree that relative poverty matters however the question is how much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. RossK (277 comments) says:

    The loony left have gone strangely silent!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    “I don’t propose an active policy of taking children off parents. I propose that people shouldn’t be given money by the state just because they have kids. ”

    I’ve adressed that. Most parents in that situation won’t give up their kids. The bonds are too strong, and the kids will just grow up in poverty. Then you accentuate all the socail problems we’ve discussed prior in this thread.

    Another point is that there’s a hell of alot of sexual and physical abuse that goes on in foster homes. It’s an ugly reality that peadophiles tend offer themeselves up for the role of “adopter”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Who would the loony left be Ross? The ones with the facts and figures I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    The debate over christian values in this thread made me think of this video. Deffinately worth a watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    RossK, just followed this thread. Well done for arguing your point and sticking to your guns in a dignified manner. PhilU was useless. Mr Nome too sticks to his guns in a dignified manner.

    I agree with you. I am more than happy to provide a ‘safety net’ for the very small percentage that cannot look after themselves but do not see why I should go to work to put some potatoes on PhilU’s table when he can do it himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    VTO – unemployment is a structural aspect of our economy. The market ensures this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Mike Collins (170 comments) says:

    Nome – “unemployment is a structural aspect of our economy. The market ensures this.”

    No, people making life choices like PhilU ensure this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Ramsay (123 comments) says:

    The “churches” are some of the wealthiest organisations in the country (if you add up the value of their land, buildings etc). What contribution are they making?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Hold on Roger, you are effectively saying people who can’t afford to properly support children will have them anyway and therefore people who are more responsible must then give money to those parents for the sake of their children. That is not fair and I think we need to be clear that the unfairness arises not from the responsible people but from the irresponsible ones who have kids they can’t afford to support – it is not right to then attack the conscience of the responsible people when they raise reservations about giving money to those parents. Say we cut the benefits and income support right down for those impecunious parents – you would have it peceived that this was a failure of conscience by the tax payers. I would say that it is a failure by those parents – they are the ones who are responsible for those kids. If your concern is kids growing up in poverty then tell people they can’t have kids until they are in a postion to support them.

    What ticks me off about the sort of arguments you make is that they are unreasonable. Someone like me goes to Uni, improves my lot, and has to wait until their thirties before I am in a financially sound position to have kids and yet you think that my taxes from my early twenties onwards shoud go to irresponsible late teens, or unemployed people in their twenties, who have kids without a thought for whether they can support them and without getting themselves financially established.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Roger: that smear on the many foster carers would need some facts to back it up. There is an abuse rate in foster homes, I don’t believe that the abuse rate is any higher (in fact is a lot lower) than those children were experiencing prior to being in their foster homes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Mike –

    Why was unemployment 11% in 1991, and 3.4-3.6% now? Were people just lazier in 1991?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RossK (277 comments) says:

    How do you stop a cycle of poverty and underachievement by encouraging people with who rely on the state for support to have kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    RossK – the innocent children become the victims of your hatred for unemployed parents. That’s the injustice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Ross-

    The National Adoption Center found that 52% of adoptable children (meaning those children in U.S. foster care freed for adoption) had symptoms of attachment disorder.[citation needed] A study by Dante Cicchetti found that 80% of abused and maltreated infants in his study exhibited symptoms of disorganized attachment.[16][17] Children with histories of maltreatment, such as physical and psychological neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, are at risk of developing psychiatric problems.[18][19][20][21] These children may be described as experiencing trauma as the result of abuse or neglect, inflicted by a primary caregiver, which disrupts the normal development of secure attachment. Such children are at risk of developing a disorganized attachment.[20][22][23] Disorganized attachment is associated with a number of developmental problems, including dissociative symptoms,[24] as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms.[25][26]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care#Effects_of_chronic_maltreatment_and_treatment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. RossK (277 comments) says:

    Roger,

    What hatred? Where have I expressed hatred? The children are innocent. No disputing that but it is their welfare dependent parents who make them the victims not me. This is what happens with welfare – a privilege invariably becomes viewed as an entitlement. You really believe that someone who doesn’t work is entitled, without restriction, to my money to support their kid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    roger nome – the innocent children actually become the victims of the irresponsible parents. That is the injustice.

    Your posts indicate that you consider the responsibility for those children does not rest with the parents but with RossK.

    Your view, imho, is all backwards.

    I think that’s what RossK is tryingto convey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Mike Collins (170 comments) says:

    Sorry Nome I should have perhaps clarified. I don’t necessarily completely disagree with you that unemployment is unavoidable. Yes there will be a large transient figure comprising people between roles. I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement from anyone that we need to support those people.*

    It is people that make the choice to be unemployed for whatever reason and also believe that others should support them accordingly, that galls many. PhilU obviously thinks it is ok for him to make choices that affect others negatively.

    *Although several people, myself included, would countenance the idea of private provision of this “safety net” by compulsory workers insurance. I don’t think that the government is necessarily the best provider of public goods.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. RossK (277 comments) says:

    So what Roger is your point? That as soon as someone has a kid then because of that kid the state should give them a big bag of money – how much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Roger, if that study was attempting to show abuse in foster care in response to my comment, it doesn’t. It shows that children in foster care have many problems because of things that have happened to them over their life. This is pretty obvious – kids who are living a happy well adjusted life aren’t in foster care. You are in foster care because your natural parents abused you, and the abuse has to be pretty serious before you get taken off them.

    In short, another example of you misreading studies and misrepresenting statistics. Where is the value in discussing things with you if every time I look at any of the detail you provide you are completely misunderstanding what the study says?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Gavin Knight (83 comments) says:

    I know Ross Kendrew well and will be seeing him over the weekend, so will discuss this with him and then post my thoughts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    So poor ole Rog thinks leaving babies in the possession of drug addled parents to be beaten to death is much better than removing them and placing them in a loving caring environment because the latter is sooooooooooooo barbaric and the former is well………………… Come on Rog explain that to the ghosts of the babies beaten to death.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Ms. (13 comments) says:

    Ross, I absolutely agree with you and am sick of paying for other people’s kids. I work very hard to give mine the very very best. Going further I believe no-one should be allowed to have children unless they have proved themselves emotionally, physically and financially able. If you adopt a dog they want to check out your home and fill out application forms and make sure you are able to take care of the animal. Surely children as our future are worth that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Fletch (6,154 comments) says:

    Gee, the churches can’t seem to do anything right according to a bulk of the posts in here. David, what’s so wrong with the churches standing up for those worse off? Aren’t they allowed to? Or is it just the fact that they’re talking about an event 17 years old?
    To those complaining that the churches should be charitable – they are. That’s why you have organizations like The Salvation Army and St Vincent De Paul, not to mention many other charities. In fact, the churches were one of the first groups to start schools, hospitals, orphanages and the like, when no one else cared.

    Good on them for speaking out, I say. I am reminded of what Einstein said of the church during WWII

    “Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came to Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks… Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”-Albert Einstein

    As it says on the page of the NZ St Vincent De Paul website

    The Society helps the poor and disadvantaged speak for themselves. When they cannot, the Society must speak on behalf of those who are ignored.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    What RossK is asking here is perfectly obvious. “philu”, and Roger Nome, HOW MUCH fiscal assistance to solo parents is ENOUGH, and HOW MANY solo parents is it acceptable for society to have to support? Where are your limits?

    Is “enough” fiscal assistance to solo parents, going to be some rate at which it is going to be preferable to a MAJORITY of us, to not bother to work at all? Is “too many” solo parents, 20% of society, 30% of society, 40% of society, or some higher figure? There is such a thing as fewer and fewer taxpayers being burdened with the support of more and more beneficiaries. I believe the ratio has gone from something like 23 to one, 3 decades ago, to 3.5 to one today.

    In the terms under which YOU GUYS frame the argument, why would it be any more immoral to deny another 20% of the population now, the right to have kids and raise them at the expense of the remainder, just because to do so would be unaffordable – why would that be any more immoral than having denied that right to anyone at any time?

    I repeat; WELL SAID, Ross K: “If nobody works, nobody eats”.

    What we are talking about here, is an incremental collapse of society. I have said this before, but I conclude that the brightest minds driving all this are doing so DESIGNEDLY. The consequences of the moral decline of the last few decades are actually NOT “unintended” at all. If you won’t admit this, you are probably in on the plot, and can’t be trusted an inch yourself. Honest but well-meaning people who have been duped by the framing of the debate in terms of altruism can generally admit the truth of the situation in THIS forum at any rate even though they might not DARE to do so in public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Ms. (13 comments) says:

    For those who believe that staying home with their one or two children is ok and good for the child, I believe it would be far more productive for society, and far more beneficial for children to attend a day care facility with trained staff who have actively followed a career with children and enjoy working and encouraging them. Children learn to interact with peers from early on and are stimulated by the variety of activities that can never be offered at home by a parent on handouts. My son flourished at childcare from very young, my friends children have all done wonderfully and already at young ages they produce such creative goodies for you to ooh and aah over. Then the parent can get on with being a productive member of society and being a good role model to their children. And the end result of this?

    Money – more money for the people working in day care, more money for the family….earned by THEMSELVES so no need to feel helpless that they cannot pay for basic needs. They have the freedom to decide where to live and what to spend their money on, to work overseas and to give their family the joy of an increased income i.e. more opportunities.

    And if there children are already at school? Well from 9am to 3pm you have free hours to work – 6 whole hours earning money.

    And this is possible NOW. So who cares about 17 years ago? And if benefits are cut? This isn’t even something that has to be passed in law or debated on in parliament. People right now on the benefits can make that decision to change their situation. Right NOW.

    Because at the end of the day this is what is all about, isn’t it. Money. Who has got it, who wants it, and who is prepared to work for it. And who isn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Clark and her fellow travellers have been on a mission since the early 1970s to destroy the traditional value system of the family in New Zealand. It has been a surgically precision operation taking control of the apparatus of the State to methodically dismember the strands that seek to bind the family unit.

    The DPB The Family Court Civil Union Prostitution Law All designed to undermione and destory.

    These people are the Devils apprentices and deserve to be consumed by the fires of Hell

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. dave (986 comments) says:

    “Rogernome: ” propose that people shouldn’t be given money by the state just because they have kids.

    So I assume you dont support:
    Working for families
    child care subsidies
    20 hours free
    Paid Parental leave
    WINZ food grants for pooor families to feed kids
    WINZ subsidies for school fees, school uniforms etc
    Childrens Christmas parties put on by Government departments

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. reid (16,111 comments) says:

    My vote for best post was Fletch’s.

    Shame that it transposed itself from a religious philosophy into a social welfare debate. philu and Rogernome continue to operate in leftyland – talk about deluded.

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/03/fighting_the_balltes_of_17_years_ago.html#comment-427227

    Both of you could do yourselves a favour and understand the reality that conservatives are not obsessed with money and almost all of them are in fact much better humans than you – they don’t judge, bludge or fudge. And they give heaps more to others than your average lefty. Look and learn, fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gd’s feckin’ ‘barking’..!

    eh..?

    (heh-heh..!..)

    a full-blown furniture-chewer..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Waymad (136 comments) says:

    Not a bad thread, once the potty-mouthing gets RIP’ed out….

    A thought for y’all: people are free to move to areas where they feel they have a better chance. That, more than anything else, undoes the best efforts of well-intentioned planners, policy analysts and Gummints. Voting with your feet. A good article on this phenomenon in the US, here.

    This explains a few shifts:

    - take-up of private health insurance, as people desert the failing NHS
    - the move to Oz. Who wouldn’t swelter in the red dust, driving a mine truck in the Pilbara, for $120K per year?
    - the move to Southland and points south in general. The hills are high and the Emperor is far away…

    I, like a lot of taxpayers, pay more tax than most benefits would provide. If I decide to go and drive that mine truck, who pays for ‘my’ beneficiary?

    That, more than anything in terms of lofty principles, determines the sustainability of our funky little Welfare State.

    No matter how Great the Good that redistribution can do (in the Right hands, natch, for We Know Best), it gets a bit pointless if your tax base just up and leaves.

    Incentives Always Matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ms said..

    “..And if there children are already at school? Well from 9am to 3pm you have free hours to work – 6 whole hours earning money..”

    and..ahem..!

    school holidays..?

    do you advocate children spend their holidays in those chain-gangs’ of bored witless children you see getting ‘day-cared/shuffled around city streets..?

    just wondering..!

    eh..?

    or..do you know of a raft of employers who could/would endure school holiday flexi-time..?

    if so..please post their names up here..?

    i am sure there would be a strong interest..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Heh PhilU Maybe you should join Ms Clark and her fellow travellers in the fires of Hell Sure would improve the standards of morals and ethics

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    philu: do you advocate children spend their holidays in those chain-gangs’ of bored witless children you see getting ‘day-cared/shuffled around city streets..?

    So do you advocate that all parents should just join the ranks of beneficiaries so they can spend the time with their children?

    I’d love to have more time with my daughter, but somebody has to pay for fuckwits like you to stay at home with their children.

    SOMEBODY has to work. I wonder why it is so difficult for these fucking lefties to understand that the money has to come from somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    Exactly Pascal. You expose the massive hole in the above rantings of the left. The massive hole they refuse to acknowledge.

    And it is reflected right thru the leftie spectrum – witness Cullen’s naive attitudes and philosophies when it comes to money and the economy as a whole.

    Are there any of them who have actually had to earn money themselves instead of being on some form of govt paid tit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Good posting, good link, Waymad. We should keep posting that link and making that argument. This thread is getting a bit long in the tooth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. SPC (5,473 comments) says:

    gd

    You wrote

    “Clark and her fellow travellers have been on a mission since the early 1970s to destroy the traditional value system of the family in New Zealand. It has been a surgically precision operation taking control of the apparatus of the State to methodically dismember the strands that seek to bind the family unit. The DPB The Family Court Civil Union Prostitution Law All designed to undermione and destory. These people are the Devils apprentices and deserve to be consumed by the fires of Hell”

    The word devil means slanderer, gd, and it has been you who has been slandering National Party politicians who would any ever being fellow travellers of Helen Clark and her ilk.

    The DPB (1973) came about because of work done in 1972 (under National) – the Family Court and Divorce Law change in 1980. The philosophical base, no fault compensation, began in the 1960′s in other areas – such as workers compensation. There was no Labour government in the 1960′s, or between 1975 and 1984.

    I fail to see how allowing people who want same sex partners relationships recognised to do this adversely affects those in families – though can see how intolerance may have in the past resulted in unhappy marriages for them and their heterosexual partners (often ending in a belated divorce). I also see little relationship between decriminalising prostitution and the functioning of families – unless your argument is that husbands and wives are more likely to be involved (to the detriment of their marirgae and family) if it is legal. There is no evidence as yet that the number of people involved in prostitutinn has increased (per population/per capita etc) since legislative change.

    As to the topic

    1. The church used to run poor laws – it was paid a tithe (compulsory and in the days when there was no income tax) and supported the Christian poor. Today there is income tax paid to the state who provide welfare to citizens.

    2. Does the $680 income include the accomodation supplement? If so after the $300 rent, there is $380 left to live on.

    Rents rose on average 7% in the past year – and this with rising power (c10%?) and food resulting in pressures on those on lower incomes for whom these costs are the major portion of their spending – those on lower incomes have faced a 5-10% decline in standard of living.

    That a change, as significant as a reverse of the 1991 benefit cuts, is required to combat this shows how serious the problem is.

    The attitude from the right, when any concern for the poor is expressed from the Church, is typical.

    The fact is, the 1991 benefit cuts were matched by a subsequent tax cut for those in employment once the budget returned to surplus – and this while unemployment still remained high. It was a classic case of taking from the poor money which was later given to the comparatively rich.

    Today is a time of clamouring for tax cuts while the poorest in society are still struggling with the legacy of the 1991 cuts. Thus the resentment that the poor in need be mentioned speaks volumes about the political culture of the right wing of our society. They generally prefer focus on the Church as (welfare reform) the Christian nation states faith based managers of the poor revisiting the historic idea of the poor having to “justify themselves” as one of the elect deserving of support. That the Church does not exist to merely serve the moralism of the right about personal responsibility for ones own circumstance, is very politically inconvenient. The bible put it that the rich would always have difficulty with the idea of responsibility for the poor and this was the issue that could divide them from the Church because of its focus on one people before God as a matter of faith.

    Why the 1991 benefit cuts are sacred to the right is explainable, they justified the cuts as necessary because of a budget deficit and yet despite a subsequent suplus they refused to reverse them. They gave out tax cuts instead. Labour, when able, gave us Working for Families – which National opposed and now supports. That the poor now need more help is obvious. If not in reversing the benefit cuts, then how.

    IMO the bare minimum, is a no tax on the first $6000 (as in Australia) – it’s about $15 a week to all taxpayers (this includes beneficiaries). On top of that, spare surplus paid in some form of social “dividend” (and of course moving the top threshold rate from $60,000 to $75,000) until we can assess a wider optimum tax reform. I have argued for a universal dovidend, but wonder if that is best in the environment now.

    As to housing costs – the multiple consents is useful as it does move us to more cost efficient building methods as well as lowering the RMA process costs (and standardising legal shared equity formats – which can be easily bought and sold as investment vehicles with partner changes, this including leasehold land with fixed long term rental pricing — the farming sector could aslo use some return to leasehold farming land). However the problem is the uncompleted developments. The government should finance completion in return for an ownership share of the housing, this would sustain the economy and quicken the clean up of the failed companies (be best for investors). Otherwise moving property investment taxation incentives to new building only, to reduce speculation in existing property and increase focus on the business activity of new housing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. battler (116 comments) says:

    National Party Leader John Key must clarify his positions for the New Zealand Public:

    1. Does he support the Working for Families package, or not?

    2. Does he support the war in Iraq, or not?

    3. Does he believe Global Warming a complete and utter hoax, or not?

    4. Does he support Nuclear power, or not?

    5. Does he support state investment and resource consents for increased coal mining, or not?

    6. Does he plan to sell Kiwibank, or not?

    7. Does he plan to sell Landcorp farms, or not?

    8. Will he repeal the Electoral Fiance Act, or not?

    9. Will he repeal the Anti Smacking Act, or not?

    10. Will he repeal the Employment Relations Act, or not?

    11. Will he repeal 4 weeks annual leave, or not?

    12. Will he repeal Paid Parental leave, or not?

    13. Will he abolish the Maori seats, or not?

    14. Will he abolish DHB’s, or not?

    15. Will he merge the Fire Service with the Ambulance service, or not?

    16. Does he support NZ ownership of Auckland International Airport, or not?

    17. Does he support Labour’s policy of Interest Free Student Loans, or not?

    18. Does he support New Zealand retaining it’s own central bank and the NZ Dollar, or not?

    19. Is he Loyal to the Queen as Sovereign as per NZ National Party principles, or not?

    20. Will he reverse the National Party’s previous cuts to NZ Super, or not?

    21. Does he support the “Cullen Fund” NZ Super Fund, or not?

    22. Will he retain Kiwi Saver, or not?

    23. Does he support retention of the current Parliamentary Prayer, or not?

    24. Does he support retention of the Oaths of Office and Oaths of Allegiance in their current form, or not?

    25. Would he in any circumstance give Winston Peters a Cabinet Position, or not?

    26. Does he support automatic NZ Citizenship for NZ Born babies, or not?

    27. Will he make the Abortion Supervisory Committe do their job properly and review the illegal abortions currently being carried out, or does he support “Abortion on Demand” and “Letting sleeping dogs lie” ?

    28. Does he support Housing Development at Hobsonville, or not?

    29. Does he support Clayton Cosgrove’s Real Estate legislation, or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Gavin Knight (83 comments) says:

    hi David

    given how the Herald spun the story I can understand why you have written as you have – but if you read the actual releases by NZCCSS you will see they are not advocating a return to 1991 benefit levels

    rather they are making an election year call for NZers to take into account how political party policies will effect people, and giving political parties a framework for being very specific with how their policies are designed to improve the lives of NZers – particularly the most vulnerable

    I can think of policies of most NZ political parties that could be articulated in terms of the NZCCSS framework and look forward to the parties themselves advocating their policies this way – rather than just competing on my tax cuts are smaller/larger/nicer than yours!

    over the weekend I have discussed this with Ross Kendrew (personal friend, and NZCCSS President) and he assures me his 1991 comments to the Herald reporter were simply contextual, as were his comments re a working family currently struggling on their low income

    I have written on this in much more depth at http://www.gavinknight.com/2008/03/nzccss-re-public-awareness-of-issues-of.html including providing links to relevant material

    regards, Gavin

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Mike (162 comments) says:


    27. Will he make the Abortion Supervisory Committe do their job properly and review the illegal abortions currently being carried out, or does he support “Abortion on Demand” and “Letting sleeping dogs lie” ?

    … speaking of fighting the battles of X many years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.