Why is the father of your child not supporting you and the spawn? Didn’t he get your name?

Hint: It’s NOT the fucking government. Wake up you illiterate, lazy twat.

15 hours is the minimum, you can aim for more. 9-3 x5 is 30 hours a week no problem. Get your child into after school care and you can bump that up to 40 easy.

You can use the extra money you make to buy a MySky and series link Oprah if you are that desperate to keep watching.

Your complaining is a perfect example of those who think that welfare is some sort of right rather than a priviledge not to be abused.

Why is it that you are owed a living for nothing in return? Criticism for someone who started out life with nothing, succeeded and is now putting themselves up for the top job in the country deserves respect.

Have some dignity and try to do it yourself.

(Quoting Dr Robotnik) “I’d love more kids, really. I just can’t afford them.”

“Lots of parents feel the same. The reason they can’t afford them is because they’re paying for the offspring of all the Philus all over the country as well- all Labour voters, and there are thousands of them taking money shamelessly from working families….”.

Yep, AND can ANY of our morally liberal leaders get their heads around the idea that there might be people who have spent years working and saving money and having NO children “until they can afford them”, and their goal has only gotten steadily further away from them thanks to “income redistribution” and rises in housing costs?

FFS.

There are a very few who will be genuinely inconvenienced by the new policy from National and my sympathies go out to those people.

You however sound like the reason this policy is going to be introduced, if it means that your life has to change then great.

Get used to it.

that was a touching story/homily..

..i guess..that unlike yourself..

..joe louis’ mother had none of that sweet sweet climate-change denial money from exxon-mobil to suck up..

(which of course..you’ll be ‘paying back’..eh..?)

hypocrisy/cant..today thy name is mcshane..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

What isnt relevant is someone who hears a policy on social welfare and complains that it doesn’t address another irrelevant topic.

I would have thought that the number of family friendly jobs available to DPB recipients was quite relevant. No point in offering a nightshift job to the mother of a 6 year old, I reckon.

<blockquote)How many jobs are needed?

Something in the region of 38,000 according to NZHerald stats.

And don’t forget the training element as well

Yes, but when you finish training the idea is to get a job and there are many years between when the youngest child is 6 and they leave school, or at least become a more independent 14 year old.

What isnt relevant is someone who hears a policy on social welfare and complains that it doesnt address another irrelevant topic.

“There are some family friendly jobs in schools and supermarkets and a few other places but in general the business world is not churning out the kinds of jobs needed to make this work.”

How many jobs are needed? I dont think it would be that many. And dont forget the training element as well, this is the most likely option as study IS flexible.

What’s the point in having ________ if it doesn’t work?

Fill the space in with whatever you fancy.

Has Labour released their policy on the economy and cost of living yet?</blockquote)

Ha, given the polls, is this even relevant?

I didnt realise the election had been called. Did I miss something? Has Labour released their policy on the economy and cost of living yet?

Again Gobsmacking stuff

- from a cancerous and corrosive ‘woman’ who stated that “it was inconceivable for her to bear children.”

How would she know anything about what was best for children. Hollow Woman statement again.

And with the greatest respect for the genuine childless parents she doesn’t even understand what maternal feelings even are!! – she’s more into ‘consorts’ according to Mike Moore who obviously knows some things that we don’t!

She doesn’t even care to have children !!

She must have been operating on some fundamental guiding principles don’t you think?

Possibly another important factor to have gone west through the breakdown of the family unit, ie a father and mother who were brought up with some fundamental morals and values.

I was speaking very recently with someone who was ardent supporter of the idea that the scourge of society are the career solo parents. I challenged him with some of the realities of the complexity of society and the ramifications of human relationships and that he was just focusing on the few people who abuse the system. All systems get abused. There is a good point here: people who abuse the DPB system are a problem, but so are shoplifters, white collar fraudsters etc. Within minutes of this discussion this person was saying that the place for women was in the home, in the kitchen etc. While he may not have truly believed what he was saying, it still came out his mouth. The probably reality here is that the very people who are creating this policy are capable of the same Freudian slip and that they want solo mothers to go out and work while at the same time maintaining that the place for the woman is in the home. This creates an unnecessary tension for the great many mothers who are on the DPB who are not ripping off the system, whose spouse has died, or who had children with someone whom they genuinely believed cared for them, who subsequently abused or left them. To be sure, there are more in that category than those who are career mothers.

As slightlyrightly has pointed out, any DPB recipient with half a brain can see they are much better off working part time than relying solely on the benefit. So why are there not more of them working? That is the question that Key should be researching, rather than stimulating the excitement of the somewhat limited redneck section of the electorate into indignant self-righteousness.

About an hour after his spiel on DPB mothers, the person I was talking to above was on a rant about how city councils, in the recent downturn, are creating work for themselves in whatever way they can by by creating new and trivial plans or enforcing minor regulations, rather than laying off staff. Oh for a perfect world!

As for Key, we have a looming recession, increasing cost of living and the first piece of legislation we get any amount of detail on concerns a subject with limited financial impact, huge social complexity and in many respects irrelevant to most pressing needs. However this is unlikely to be an election issue, so it gives Key an opportunity to unravel some of the detail of National Party policies and then see what the reaction is with the minimum amount of damage should it prove to be completely unsafe (part of the John Key learn-on-the-job phenomenon). Key has already demonstrated that he is not an ideologue and is more than happy to do a complete flip flop (eg WFF) and save the taxpayer from unnecessary spending because the reality is that the cost of enforcing this policy will far exceed any financial return, the morality of children brought up by non-working parents notwithstanding.

I’m interested to see what this National Party policy will look like in 6 months time.

Then came the depression and the family was in such dire straits that she applied for some state assistance which she received.
She was bitterly ashamed.

When Joe earned his first decent cheque for winning a fight in the ring he handed it over to her to compensate for all her hardship.
She then took the cash down to the Welfare office and paid the money back in full to restore her self-respect.

We have walked down a long road since then.