The cockroach eating boy
April 6th, 2011 at 10:23 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Reports of a starving boy eating cockroaches, pensioners eating cat food and a soaring increase in demand for food parcels were raised in Parliament today as Labour accused the Government of turning its back on New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens.
Labour’s deputy leader, Annette King, asked Prime Minister John Key what he intended doing to help people who couldn’t afford to buy food because of the rapid rise in the cost of living.
”Many low-income families can’t afford even a basic nutritious diet for their children…the Salvation Army in Whangarei has seen an increase of 90 percent in food parcels since the New Year and is now having to ration them to one per family,” she said.
Mr Key said he understood the cockroach case could be an issue of neglect rather than income support.
”The Government obviously supports not only a benefit-based system for those who find themselves in need but also significant hardship grants,” he said.
The Government spends $21.2 billion on social security and welfare. Yes, that is $21.2 billion. That is aI lot of money for a country of 4 million.
So if I was media, and I heard claims about a family so starving, that a six year old boy is forced to eat cockroaches for food, I would ask two questions before breathlessly reporting the claims.
- What is the family’s current income, and are they getting all the Government support they should
- What has that income been spent on, so there is no food for their six year old child?
The level of welfare that a “poor” family gets is exactly the same today, as it was under nine years of Helen Clark. No benefits have been cut, and they are adjusted for inflation. In fact National passed a law making the inflation adjustment mandatory.
NZ has a very generous welfare state at $21.2b. That is not to say that life isn’t very tough for families dependent on welfare – of course it is. But I would be amazed if it turns out that the reason that six year old was eating cockroaches was because WINZ had refused them assistance.
UPDATE: The BOP Times makes clear this is a case of neglect, not insufficient support. So shame on Labour for trying to blame the cost of living on this.
A Western Bay mother’s appalling neglect of her family reduced her 6-year-old son to eating cockroaches to survive.
This admission was made to Homes of Hope director Hilary Price.
The boy told how hungry he used to get before he and his siblings were removed from their mother by Child Youth and Family (CYF) and put into the care of Homes of Hope.
One day they got so hungry they went to look for food and found cockroaches. He then described eating the cockroaches: “Yeah, they were crunchy and juicy.”
Mrs Price did not doubt the boy was telling the truth because of his age and the manner in which he confided to her.
“I was appalled to hear that. There is no excuse when the person was receiving enough support to access the basics for her children.“
Yet this is what Annette King asked the PM in Parliament:
What is he prepared to do to assist New Zealanders who are most in need, in light of reports over the weekend that a boy a was found eating cockroaches because he was starving and that the budgeting services are receiving reports of pensioners eating cat food as the cost of living keeps going up at a rapid rate?
So Labour knew this was a case of extreme parental neglect, and that the local welfare group had said the mother was receiving enough support for the basics – yet they still tried to portray this case as tied to the cost of living. Shame.
Related posts:
- The flawed WFF at work
- Hide on “child poverty”
- Labour MPs showing beneficiaries how to budget
- Guest Post: Backyard Cricket for All!
April 6th, 2011 at 10:29 am
It’s part of a campaign that started with the release of a study linking “food insecurity” in New Zealand with mental health. Typical academic/left wing horse shit.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:36 am
You heartless, cruel monster. How dare you make this the fault of the family. It’s that horrible John Key and the people under him who couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery who are obviously to blame.
I mean, think about it. He gave himself and all top tax earners a large tax cut while not assisting low-income families at all. Surely that’s relevant? (it must be, it’s the line The Standard keep pushing, and they are paid by Labour). TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! …I wish Labour wasn’t so inept… TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!
I’m sure if you asked nice then Marty G would make some pretty graphs showing how the increase in cockroach eating is directly correlated with John Key’s (independently sanctioned) salary increase and TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:37 am
I must admit I was rather cynical about this story – it sounds like neglect to me. too. I know a property manager who was shocked to find a tenant had put locks on the kitchen cupboards because ‘the kids kept stealing the food’. There were teeth marks on the window sills. She reported them to CYPS – suspecting the kids were actually starving.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:39 am
DPF, how much of that $21.2 billion actually goes to welfare recipients?
[DPF: Not sure - I just grabbed the topline figure from the budget]
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
The Salvation Army are actually terrible shit stirrers when it comes to this stuff. Their top guys are very political and all huge Labour supporting pinkos.
They over egg this kind of thing in order to keep Govt funding and the publics donations flowing.
What people might find interesting is having a look at the Salvation Army’s annual accounts. They are absolutely loaded and like many charities make sure their own nest is good and feathered before the needy actually get a look in.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
This story is bullshit. Clear case of neglect. Fuck, you can forage enough edible plants to eat on the average street in New Zealand without resorting to bugs – which may be a delicacy for some new New Zealanders.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:40 am
They could always get a job.
Just sayin.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:42 am
He was probably just sick of KFC.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:43 am
The reason a six year old would probably eat a cockroach because somebody dared him to.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:43 am
Big cheese, please say it ain’t so. I had always supported the ‘sallies’ and if I ever win the big one on Lotto they were gong to be a key recipient of a part of the winnings.
Them and the Red Cross.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:44 am
If Full Moon is so concerned about the so called “underclass” she could put some up at her place, I understand she has a spare room at the moment.
Vote:As an aside Annette doesn’t look as though she stood at the back of the line at tucker time, stupid tart obviously mixed up the story with one from the Wild Foods Festival.
How much more of this crap do we have to put up with from these dumb as dogshit retards.
April 6th, 2011 at 10:44 am
wow some poor kid is neglected and its now the governments fault? not the piece of shit parents?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:46 am
That’s an understatement DPF. The current system is so generous, flawed, and bloated that has created a generation of bludgers, idlers, and parasitical people, who, although in perfect good health, refuse to work and have chosen a lifestyle at taxpayers’ expense.
The time has come for welfare reform as a pre-requisite to lift New Zealand out othe economic rut we are in.
All we need is a government with the political courage to undertake the necessary reform. Unfortunately, Labour lite is not famous for its courage.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:46 am
fizzleplug. I’d be more inclined to contrast the tax cuts for the rich, as you call them, against the massive borrowing binge this government is on.
As for the cockroach. It does not matter whether it is lack of support (through either ignorance or circumstance) or neglect of a child, it still needs to be addressed, not ignored.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:50 am
Food parcels “…..ration them to one per family”
You mean they were able to get more than one per family. I only ever got one per family when I ever needed one. Greedy bastards.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Catfood is very nutritious but is not cheap. Basic food items like baked beans, noodles, eggs, and bread are all probably cheaper. Perhaps it was the person’s food of choice and objection was taken by a politician or other social engineer on her/his behalf rather than the consumer. I have seen silly reality TV shows where a contestant has to eat cockroaches and it may be a case of a child copycat.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 10:57 am
That is not to say that life isn’t very tough for families dependent on welfare – of course it is.
Well let’s not go making any assumptions on how tough it is. I happen to live next to Housing NZ tenants, and judging from the fact that they are home all day I imagine welfare is being paid. Judging from the cars going in and out all day and all night and the fact that they have managed to set fire to their place at 4am and then hid from the fire department when they turn up, I’d say there’s some cooking going on. All 3 of the flats have Sky dishes. A calorie surplus appears to be enjoyed by most of the people living there.
Now that is not a lifestyle I prefer. But it is not clear to me this is a tough life. My neighbours have shelter, food, entertainment, leisure, and their liberty. Tough surely begins when one or more of those is missing, not before. Are my neighbours really so different from the norm?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:01 am
“The Government spends $21.2 billion on social security and welfare.”
That’s not the issue here. The issue is that we, as a country, have let the number of children, growing up in low-income homes sky rocket since “the mother of all budgets” in 1990. It somehow instututionalised childhood poverty. Set a precedent. Made it ok. There are hundreds of studies in health, education and social mobility, which show that growing up in a low-income home is significantly associated with worse outcomes in adulthood.
I’m not going to go in to specifics here, because the information is on-line for anyone who can bare to look at the consequences of our collective negligence. There was a time when New Zealanders looked at each other as being part of one big metaphorical family. People felt genuine responsibility for those who lack choice themselves. in the late 19th century, Dick Seddon and William Pember Reeves undertook a study of labour exploitation in New Zealand called “The Sweating Commission”. It found children working 12 hours per day, instead of going to school, just so their family could eat. The public reacted with shock, and measures were introduced to improve the situation. Since then we have become many times more wealthy as a country, and we’re back to where we were 100 years ago, except now the children aren’t allowed to work. They just have to eat a nutritionally inadequate diet. How can people not be outraged at this? Have we lost our human empathy to such a degree? Has that side of New Zealand been sliced out of our collective consciousness forever?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:02 am
“pensioners eating cat food”
Perhaps they get a discount using their Goldcard. Another Winston triumph!
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:06 am
@magic bullet
The issue isn’t whether we don’t care. The concern is that this is a case of neglect, not one of poverty.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Let them eat roaches!
Actually a tin of beans is a third the price of cat food Rodders. Poor budgeting move there I’d say.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Has anyone got any actual details of how the kid came to be chowing down on natures self delivering protien bars anyway?
All I’ve seen is some very oblique reports with nothing about the circumstances. Context is everything.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:16 am
The Standard have been trying to make a meal over this and called me evil for suggesting there could be more to this than a mean government.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Actually roaches arent that bad deep fried , plenty of protein..you just have to make sure the feet are removed before you bite into them…they get stuck in between ya teeth. Ate them in ‘Nam along with some bbq rat.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:19 am
DEEP FIRED????? Oh the humanity, evil fat, are you trying to make the child obese now!!!
And why so far, you vcan get roaches locally you know. Frankly I think you’re a bug snob. In Singapore we called the rat mousedeer. Itt sold better that way.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:20 am
So no actual evidence other than a hearsay report of something a 6 year old boy said?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Yeah but theres a full meal in those ‘Nam roaches…big as cats
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:26 am
The mozzies in Malasia were so big they had squadron markings!
They all line up on the nets untill they had enough weight and then they’d swing the net until it got close enough to you arm and they’d stap you though the mesh!
For the unititiated this would be the military version of Monty Pythons three Yorkshiremen. Lets see where it take us.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:33 am
..Ive still got a piece of shrapnel in my ass from those damn commies lettin off mortars near my compound..those were the days..good ole ‘Nam..
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:48 am
The only wound I got was from our own artillery support. Bloody drop-shorts. Could land a shell within 1 grid-square of the target.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 11:51 am
The story regarding the 6 year old eating cockroaches is probably anecdotal but nevertheless illustrative of the difficulties low income famililies are experiencing in the face of a rocketing cost of living.
Vote:The bugbear in the New Zealand economy which has been out of sight but not of mind is inflation. The govt in raising GST caused the collateral effect of increasing inflation higher than the govt and treasury are willing to admit. Inflation has fed through into the economy and has impacted on rents and mortgages to the extent that less money is available for basic food items in the average kiwi home.
April 6th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Happily I never got any combat… yet the artillery still managed to londge some shrap in my trim vane in Tekapo.
They’re a dangerous bunch.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
The cavalry, adding tone to an otherwise unseemly brawl.
But also good for squashing their own and careless Aussie reporters.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Kevin, if we expect wages and benefits through companies and governments being lifted as a rational response to increased inflation, we must therefore first expect consumers and taxpayers to alter their spending to economic conditions also. Rationality cannot be imparted on any one party in an economic situation arbitrarily.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Cockroach eating is a right enshrined in Te Tiriti. Isn’t it?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Amazing what a simple web search will turn up…..
GREGOR SAMSA’S SAMOSAS
Ingredients:
24 frozen cockroaches, thawed and stripped of
limbs, wings, and antennae, and de-waxed (see note below)
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
1 teaspoon minced garlic
1 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1 medium-sized sweet potato, peeled and diced
1 large onion, diced
2 carrots, diced
2/3 cup cooked corn
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon curry powder
1 tablespoon soy sauce
1 teaspoon brown sugar
Pinch of flour
4 spring roll sheets
2 cups peanut oil
Directions:
1) Heat the vegetable oil, then briefly fry the garlic and pepper.
2) Add the other ingredients, stirring constantly until vegetables are
al dente (cooked just enough to retain a somewhat firm texture) and the
cockroaches are cooked through.
3) Cut each spring roll sheet into long, 1-inch strips. Place a dollop
of filling on each strip and fold over the corner, creating a triangle.
Fold over five more times, sealing the final fold with paste made from
flour and water.
4) Heat the peanut oil in a frying pan until the oil is hot but not
smoking. Deep fry each samosa until golden brown. Drain and serve.
Yield: 4 servings
Note: A cockroach’s body is covered with a thin coating of wax. In some
Vote:species (including Periplaneta americana), this wax has a slightly acrid
chemical taste that some diners may find distasteful. For this reason,
it is advisable to soak the thawed, frozen roaches in lemon juice or
white vinegar for an hour or two prior to cooking. This will dissolve
most of the wax, which can then be discarded along with the lemon or
vinegar solution. The cockroaches can then be incorporated into bug
dishes without further ado.
April 6th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Oh and pensioners eating catfood – my in-laws were served pate on crackers at a friend’s house. She invited them to compliment her in this amazing discovery of reasonably priced pate called Gourmet. Didn’t go down well I can tell you. Conflating the ssenile with the desperate can only be a deliberate distortion.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Low income indeed.
I was absolutely appalled to hear that 10% of our population have income in the bottom 10%. I propose a levy to remedy this, funded by the rich pricks.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Magic Bullet – not often one sees correlation so completely confused with causation. First the mother of all budgets 20 years ago. Now kid eats cockroaches. First a ‘sweat’ commission. Then New Zealand gets wealthy. Yea, makes total sense.
What I will never understand the the refusal of the Left to assign responsiblity for bad outcomes to bad decisions. It is neither explanation or a solution to say this is some collective failure. It is obviously not, given how much money the collective is throwing at these people. This boy is eating cockroaches because his parents have made a series of decisions so bad that even free shelter, food, and clothing courtesy of other people couldn’t stop them mistreating their child. Blaming anybody but the individuals responsible cannot fix the problem.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
DPF, Labour, being socialists have no concept of ‘shame’. The end justifies the means.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Magic Bullet Says:
The issue is that we, as a country, have let the number of children, growing up in low-income homes sky rocket since “the mother of all budgets” in 1990. It somehow instututionalised childhood poverty. Set a precedent. Made it ok. There are hundreds of studies in health, education and social mobility, which show that growing up in a low-income home is significantly associated with worse outcomes in adulthood.
…./…
it takes two to tango: you have state actions and you have various response. People look at the terrain the state has made for them and respond. If welfare is generous people factor that in and when the economy dives that welfare support has to shrink. In addition people make their choice about bearing children on the availability of welfare so create a need for more welfare.
“There was a time when New Zealanders looked at each other as being part of one big metaphorical family. ”
On the one hand unemployment is real; the economy shrinks and those out of work can’t always replace those in work but we have historically moved from addressing genuine need to no fault welfarism. This is where the left and right separate; the right see malls full of solo mums, fathers welching as flatmates, kids misbehaving (the Kahui family type). The left deny this type of scenario – two different world views (the world is just a model in your head).
Vote:There was a time (post WW2) when we were “Godzone”. New Zealand was for New Zealanders and we (mostly) knew we were lucky to be here. Now the property market has been globalised and policy is steered towards protecting the wealth of the wealthy.
April 6th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“The issue isn’t whether we don’t care. The concern is that this is a case of neglect, not one of poverty.”
The issue is EXACTLY whether people care about this. The cockroach story is primarily of symbolic value of course.
In 1986, 11 percent of dependent children lived in households with less than 60 percent of median household incomes. By 1995, after significant changes (by National) in family support and declining employment and labour force participation, 35 percent of children lived in households with incomes below the 60 percent threshold of median household incomes. The latest figures are for 2007 and show the figure at 16%, so Labour did reduce the trend with WFF. But WFF didn’t help children from families receiving income support. Unemployment has increased by over 100,000 workers since then, so it’s logical to assume that many more children are living in poverty now, than was the case in 2007.
So now what to do about it? More tax-cuts for the rich so they can give more to charity of they choose? Doesn’t work though, does it. Children who grow up in poverty are forever scarred with its diseases, both medical/psychological and social. There’s a word for adults who scar children for life, for their own selfish and twisted pleasure. It’s called National.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
magic bullet @ 12.49pm
What a load of bollocks! Does it escape your attention that the roughly half of the NZ population who support National have children too? The only difference I guess is that the majority of these people have children they can afford to rear properly rather than procreate to obtain or bolster their income & lifestyle.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
This was pretty much what I thought when I read the story, the media likes reporting sensationalistic nonsense with no context. There is still no reason for a kid to be this hungry in NZ today unless there is some serious family dysfunction and neglect. What disturbs me the most about this story though is that it detracts from the fact that there are people suffering serious declines in their living standards due to the cost of fuel, food, etc. Idiot media again.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
nasska – so children are just collateral damage in your drive to punish this mythical”bludger” the right’s imagination? They no doubt belong to a gang, they’re brown, and wear white freezing work boots everywhere, and make $100,000 per year selling dope. National’s brown bogey man – a political invention that has become part of the NZ right’s mythology, and boy have they been preaching that mythology of hate hard over the last 20 years.
Endless news stories about naughty beneficiaries walking in and out of court…. Presumably the archetypal brown benefit bogey man consists of the 0.8 % of adults who, when unemployment was at its lowest (2007), had been without work for more than 6 months.
Common krazybloggers, lets hunt ‘em down ‘n’ lynch ‘em! Leave no stone unturned! Fuck their children, lets just find that bogey man! Where is he?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Magic bullet: you are a bigotted idiot.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
What’s invisible and smells of catfood? A pensioner’s fart.
Vote:That joke has been around for decades, none of these problems are new. I’ve seen no practical difference in policy between Labour and National when it comes to welfare.
In terms of making sure the kids get fed properly it would help a lot if benefits were paid as vouchers or a transaction card that couldn’t be used for tobacco and alcohol.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
magic bullets magic bullet = tax all rich pricks 90%, that will fix everything.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
What a pathetic bleeding heart you are, magic bullet.
Where were you during the nine years of socialist Labour government? What did your lot do for the people you falsely claim to represent/defend?
The concept of personal responsibility eludes you. The unavoidable fact that each one of us have to make decisions in life and pay for the consequences.
To be in a disadvantaged position does not mean accepting your lack of fortune. It pushes many people to strive harder for themselves and their families.
Your attempt to defend the lazy and parasitical is contemptible.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Spam – problem is you can’t stand to see the reality of things spelled out to you. National’s hunt for the brown benefit bogey man is ugly, and has had many ugly consequences. I’m just pointing you to the shit on your knees. Don’t blame me for it.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
“Where were you during the nine years of socialist Labour government? What did your lot do for the people you falsely claim to represent/defend?”
I spent a lot of time helping to organise protests against Labour actually.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
magic bullet said “I spent a lot of time helping to organise protests”
and that achieved…?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“‘The Government spends $21.2 billion on social security and welfare.‘”
“That’s not the issue here.”
Classic.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Complete “nutbars” such as Magic Bullet will never accept that in New Zealand today buzwords such as Poverty, widening gap twixt rich and poor, under-privileged and disadvantaged will be anything other than the fault of the government and ten nay onehundred times more so when the government is not of their socialist utopia. All in the cause of perpetrating their desired government even when they take such people for granted as far as electoral support is concerned.
Until the 1930s there was genuine poverty in this country, now with one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, albeit totally unaffordable any one and I mean any single person who is living in anything approaching poverty is merely enduring that status because of poor lifestyle choices or the people claiming such a state are either ignoring the reality or being deliberately manipulative with the truth.
My dictionary defines Poverty as unable to access the necessities of life, I don’t consider tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, methamphetamine, cocaine, play station, sky programs, chocolate, potato chips, deepfried chips, skateboards, tatoos, or crime as necessary to survive but everyone of those listed above are CHOICES.
Vote:The poorest of those who the manipulators and repeaters in the parliament and the media cry crocodile tears for, would have been considered fortunate in the community I grew up in, even if totally stupid in their choices.
April 6th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I suppose it would be too much to suggest that they get off their lazy arses and get a job?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
As if. The problem is that you think that there is only one way to solve a problem – your way. You cannot comprehend that other people actually want a similar outcome to you, but differ in their view on how that outcome should be achieved.
You spout rubbish like “There’s a word for adults who scar children for life, for their own selfish and twisted pleasure. It’s called National.” and “Common krazybloggers, lets hunt ‘em down ‘n’ lynch ‘em! Leave no stone unturned! Fuck their children, lets just find that bogey man! Where is he?” which is just crap. You honestly believe that National (and by extension its supporters) don’t have children, and in fact actually set-out to torture children? Its untrue, offensive and actually a bit sickening.
If you do believe this, then I actually feel very sorry for you.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
That’s nothing. My Dad told me the mossies in Egypt were so big they not only got together to life the moquito net, they would fly in, turn over the dog tag and check your blood type.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Gravedodger:
“now with one of the most generous welfare systems in the world?”
Evidence please.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@magic bullet – NZ doesn’t have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world?
Evidence please.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
magic bullet @ 1.21pm
No hunting, no lynching, the stones can stay where they are & if we were after the “mythical” bludger their children would be an unlikely vehicle. It is more that some of us can distinguish between quantity & quality & can realise that uncontrolled breeding doesn’t result in the best outcome for parents & certainly not for the children.
Money isn’t everything & is certainly not a guarantee of successful parenting but it helps, as does time, attitude & showing an example to one’s children. Put another way if you have an average income & two or three children there is every possibility that those kids will have more individual attention & a superior upbringing than those who have to fight for a seat in the family mini bus. The Chinese immigrants to this country realise this & the success of their children should shed a little light on the optimum family size.
Currently the highest birth rate is to be found amongst the Maori & Pacific Island communities yet you would be the first to agree that they are over represented in the low income demographic. Instead of punishing those who have come to grips with the idea that large families are no longer necessary to allow for the predations of sabre toothed tigers how about promoting birth control & family planning amongst those who need it.
We’ve been taking money from the productive & giving it to breeders for about the last 80 years. To date I would hesitate to call the practice a resounding success. Since a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing time after time & expecting a different outcome maybe it’s time for a change.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
SPAM:
“You honestly believe that National (and by extension its supporters) don’t have children, and in fact actually set-out to torture children?:”
Willful ignorance/neglect is not far off directly perpetrating the act. National and its core constituents (about 30% of NZers) can have kids. They probably care about them as much as anyone else will in their life time, it’s the poor brown babies National and its supporters have let down the most. A kind of systematic economic racism, justified by the hunt for National’s brown benefit bogey man. Funny how many racist reactionaries there are out there who just get angry and call you racist when you call out their racism The classic sign of a guilty conscious, anger and projection.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
magic bullet said “The classic sign of a guilty conscious”
A Freudian slip?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
We’ve been taking money from the productive & giving it to breeders for about the last 80 years. To date I would hesitate to call the practice a resounding success.
Quite possibly the understatement of all time
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
magic bullet, what New Zealand university’s Department of Social Studies and Feminism you teach at?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Rodders, in 2007 New Zealand was below the OECD average in terms of public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures. Can’t see how that situation could have become better.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/46/37864391.pdf
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Magic Bullet………The genesis of the problems you assert was the Kirk Government who introduced the DPB and made it possible for the now fastest growing school-leaver pre-occupation of breeding for profit . The problem was exacerbated by the destruction of christian and family values by the Clark Government…Lindsay Mitchell yesterday incidentally had a chart showing how in the United States where new immigrants received no assistance of any kind they were about 90% employed while in NZ where they receive assistance of every kind they have an un-employment rate of about 90%.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
National was the government in ’07????? [/sarcasm]
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
magic,
You’re going off on another self-indulgent rant I’m afraid. You throw out baseless allegations and contrast them with your own professed piety.
Please go and masturbate elsewhere.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
ciaron you’re looking silly. What do you think these words mean?
“Can’t see how that situation could have become better.”
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
wat – How about posting an actual argument, instead of that pathetic excuse for an insult?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
@magic bullet, thanks for the link. I notice that all the countries that have higher spending than NZ (other than Australia) are in Europe. I would be interested to know how NZ’s salary levels would compare with theirs.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Backster (hopefully not named after JKB – who would have hated you) – wrong.
Countries with more comprehensive child-welfare systems have much better child health, education and social mobility stats. Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
magic bullet “in 2007 New Zealand was below the OECD average in terms of public spending on family benefits in cash, services and tax measures. Can’t see how that situation could have become better”
Try proving whether it has become better or worse. Until then you’re making assumptions.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
TLDR? Summary: Magic Bullet thinks that anyone who disagrees with him, or thinks that throwing other people’s money at problems isn’t the only solution, is a racist.
I’m so glad we can have a rationale discussion….
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Rodders “I notice that all the countries that have higher spending than NZ (other than Australia) are in Europe.”
I wonder how many countries in Europe are settling indigenous grievance claims while simultaneously maintaining higher family benefits than NZ. And how much of treaty settlement money goes to helping poor Maori, rather than the Maoristocrats?
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/welfare.png
http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/welfare.png
http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/unemployment1.png
http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/wwg21.png
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“thinks that throwing other people’s money at problems isn’t the only solution, is a racist”
Mine, all mine, the pweshious tax cuts. Jeez grow up and share your toys….
Ok – so some of National’s core constituents will be suffering from a delusion that 35% (would hate to see what the figures were for Maori) childhood poverty in 1996 was a good outcome for NZ. But dopamine excess and mental retardation put aside, yall racists.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Don’t be thick MB. you can’t claim that after 3 years of National things are significantly worse, ffs just look at the moaning on here about not slashing MoWA, WFF, interest free student loans ect…..
Whatever economic props the poor had have hardly been dismantled en masse by National.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
magic,
Well, for example, you profess great concern for “brown” people, yet propose redistributing the earnings of working Kiwis not to starving Africans but to people in South Auckland etc who, in comparison, already live like kings with free handouts, free education, subsidised housing and all the opportunities that come from living in a first world country.
Rather than save the lives of many thousands of Africans with a given sum of taxpayers’ money you propose instead to use state force to allow the already wealthy to buy themselves larger plasma televisions with it.
Everything about your position is disgusting and nauseating. It has no moral basis. It is ugly nationalism which discounts the lives of people simply because they live the other side of a notional and arbitrary national border.
So the next time you come here to preach and boast about your piety please bear in mind how sick-making your ideas are for any normal person.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Ah the left’s perfect circle. Define poverty as a percentage of median income. Then tackle “poverty” through a series of measures whose only effect will be to reduce that median.
It’s ALWAYs easier to drag down the top then to try and lift up the bottom.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I remember this one time in the ‘J’ the rats were sooo big you didn’t need to wrap them in duct tape.
Vote:April 6th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
mongy bullet’s angry projection and piss poor knowledge of recent history is hilarious.
But remember, mongy bullet is really very clever. All he wants is a mix of capitalism and socialism (which is what we already have) and entrusts the very moderate Green Party to get us there.
Um, er, yeah.
Vote:April 7th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I actually thought the kid was eating cockroaches despite not being neglected.
Now I know he WAS neglected I am much happier.
These social welfare debates are great. All the rightwing cliches emerge from the woodwork.
”Drag down the top rather than lift the bottom” ”breeding for a living”, ”pathetic bleeding heart”, ”bludgers idlers and parasitical people”
Do wish these coves would think up some new cliches.
Vote:April 7th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
“Do wish these coves would think up some new cliches.”
Maggie,
Is that as opposed to making up stories instead? For example, how the cockroache-eating boy was a product of poor welfare policies rather than neglect?
Yep, “make it all up” – it’s got to be a better option
Vote:April 7th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Utterly parasitical, indeed (Darwin was right).
Vote:April 7th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
KiwiGreg,
“Define poverty as a percentage of median income. Then tackle “poverty” through a series of measures whose only effect will be to reduce that median.”
I have some unfortunate news for you. Poverty is not defined against a median income – it is defined as not having things that many others in society have. For instance: if many people have two cars and you can not afford two, you are in poverty. If many people have MySky HDi and you do not, you are in poverty.
Of course as people’s standards of living improve the poverty line must increase in line with them – as it is tied not to an arbitrary income level, but to what other people have.
This ‘definition’ is the sociological approach in action and is designed to be self-perpetuating. Under their definition you can never eradicate poverty unless you can attain pure communism
Vote:April 7th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
What a load of unmitigated bull puckey.
Vote:April 8th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Maggie,
I can only assume your ignorant response was aimed at my comments above. So for your edification:
“Poverty is, then, essentially a relative concept, a condition measurable only in terms of the living standards and resources of any one society at a particular time… Individuals are poor when they are significantly deprived relative to the circumstances of their fellow nationals… What is ‘necessary’ for a decent standard of living is a matter of social definition which may change over time.” Bilton Bonnett, Jones, et al “Introductory Sociology” pg 95.
- poverty is defined as a relative measure and not linked objectively to income levels
- poverty is linked to what “fellow nationals” have – being an extraordinarily broad catchment pool and, again, not linked to a specific income level [again, for your edification, "fellow nationals" allows a comparison to the extraordinarily wealthy as a basis for measurement and classification as in poverty.]
- poverty is measured in terms of living standards – i.e what you do not have as compared to any and all others
- poverty is not an objective measure fixed to an objective comparison (income), but, instead, “may change over time” [as I noted, as others progress so too does the 'poverty line.']
So the only “bull puckey” Maggie is inside your head
Vote: