A Tremain cartoon

November 9th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Tags:

43 Responses to “A Tremain cartoon”

  1. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Another true believer in the Marxist fallacy that DPB mothers supposedly live a life of idle luxury at my expense.

    Strange – it’s almost exclusively comfortable, professional people who seem to think like this!

    Vomit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    I don’t know that anyone thinks they live in idle luxury, and most want to get the hell out of their dependant situation, but proportionally there could be as many lifestyle solos as Maori thugs and employee exploiting bosses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t worry about it being at your expense RRM. Its the productive sector that pays for all of these excesses.

    A sector that is dwindling more every day as those riding in the cart grow to be much greater in number than those who are pulling it.

    The whole ridiculous artifice will soon collapse.

    But that is the whole idea of course, and that is a truth the left keep smoke screening, and that the so called right are too gutless to call them on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sam Buchanan (499 comments) says:

    What amazes me is the number of financially comfortable people who will tell you their kids are wonderful and enrich their lives, yet are absolutely certain that poor people only have kids to get handouts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    What amazes me is the number of financially comfortable people who will tell you that handing out more of other people’s money to some other people will solve all problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Brad (75 comments) says:

    What an amazingly accurate likeness of Paula Bennett that the cartoonist has drawn. Its uncanny

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Well philosophical debates about solving all problems are a lot of fun!

    But meanwhile the old woman’s kids are very real, and they need to eat something…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. backster (2,000 comments) says:

    The proof that many a true word is spoken in jest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    The woman should have thought of that before she got knocked up RRM. It is not societies problem, it is her problem.

    The last thing this world needs is another hungry mouth to feed. There should not be incentives for having kids, but penalties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    The real question is would the woman have had so many children if she hadn’t expected someone else to pay for them?
    Because many parents plan their families according to their own ability to support them, and to such parents it becomes particularly galling that they have to support the large families of others with no personal responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    But meanwhile the old woman’s kids are very real, and they need to eat something…

    Yes. The state helps her there. So should the father/s, shouldn’t he/they?

    Money will be tight but relative to all of history she should do ok and so will her kids – most if not all will survive into adulthood far better than preceding generations.

    I saw something on TV last night that hadn’t ocurred to me before. An Aussie soldier went off to fight in WWI. His wife was left at home in Perth with the kids and bugger all money. And no welfare at all. She had to find a way to survive. Many many women had to do that, in many countries.

    And another example seen recently, a man was sent to prison early last century. There was no state support for his family. His wife went to live with her brother’s family, and the kids were split and sent to grandparents and other family.

    Today things are tough financially for many solos, but nowhere near as tough as it would have been not long ago. And most of the mothers and fathers have the primary responsibility:
    - for the situation they are in
    - for caring for their kids.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Yes Kea she should have thought about that.

    But unfortunately we are forced to consider the real world, where plenty like her do not think about that.

    So there are kids around us whose parents cannot provide for them. Either we let them starve and say “that’s fine because they’re not our problem”, or else we as “society” kinda by default end up having to make it our problem…

    My view is that any civilised society needs to be the village that has helped to raise children who need help, and and care for the sick who need help, since at least the end of prehistory.

    That doesn’t mean I am wedded to the idea of a DPB as being the ONLY way that this could be done in a society like ours, but I don’t see a lot of sensible alternatives being put forward. Maybe you have one…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Grendel (873 comments) says:

    Tell you what RRM, you are right, regardless of the indolence or poor choices of the mother (and presumably absent sperm donor), the kids are hungry.

    So lets cut the crap and have the kids looked after. overhaul the foster care system so that the foster parents are not in a situation where the social workers actively work against them and treat them worse than they do the criminal/neglectful parents.

    As an ardent ‘right winger’ i would happily pay more tax or see tax diverted to make sure that people have the resources to foster kids and that these kids are actually looked after. that way the ‘parent’ gets no money for hanging on to kids they dont care about and the kids actually get fed, washed, clothed, talked to and taken to school.

    when strangers look after your kids better than you do, something is wrong and its not with society, its with crappy parents.

    i am not sure if there are many people trying to get pregnant just for the money, but there are a lot of women who put no effort into not getting pregnant, becuase they know they will get paid, and you can ignore 4 kids as easily as you can ignore 3.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Fair enough Pete but “no worse than conditions at the dawn of the 20th century” is a pretty low bar to aim for.

    Grendel – exactly! I’d vote for you. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Today things are tough financially for many solos, but nowhere near as tough as it would have been not long ago. And most of the mothers and fathers have the primary responsibility:
    - for the situation they are in
    - for caring for their kids.

    Its soon going to get a lot worse for these poor people.

    And that is because of the ideas promoted by retards like you. Those ideas that have steadily chipped away at concepts such as self reliance and independence, and replaced them with ideas such as welfarism, where other taxpayers, regardless of how short they might be of cash, are forced to provide money to a huge and widely abused slush fund kept in place by corrupt politicians and ignorant losers who abuse the process of democracy by using government primarily as

    Private charities were always the best and only way to deal with this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    yet are absolutely certain that poor people only have kids to get handouts.

    Got another explanation for the regular occurrence of unloved toddlers allowed to be bashed and abused by the next feral “partner” their mother shacks up with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. publicwatchdog (1,816 comments) says:

    Got a similar cartoon about long-term ‘corporate welfare’ beneficiaries?

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption / anti- ‘corporate welfare’ campaigner’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (21,799 comments) says:

    My view is that any civilised society needs to be the village…

    I think that’s a key word, village. We need to get a village mentality back, somehow.

    Taxes, benefits, bloody Wellington (parliament) – they are all too remote and unseen to connect closely with.

    I think a lot of people would front up with a bit of money to help, if they through it would go directly to those who really deserve and not into the black whole of the consolidated fund.

    There are a lot of community initiatives, service groups (Lions and Rotary) and social services around Dunedin, apart from the main charities there are suburban groups, garden establishment groups etc etc.

    If more people got involved, especially as locally as possible, a lot of littles could add up to a lot.

    I’ve floated the idea of a local social trust (need to try and progress that). I contribute regularly to a charity that helps people in real poverty (overseas). I contribute regularly to one local initiative (mobile child counselling). I would consider contributing more, out of each pay, to a local community fund, if I could see it bypassing as much bureaucracy as possible and minimising waste on system users and abusers.

    (I finished typing this before I saw RB’s last post).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. iMP (2,149 comments) says:

    Is this a cartoon about Catholics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Children/nzs-children.aspx
    Māori children and to a lesser extent Pacific Islands children are more likely than children from other ethnic groups to live with only one parent. Some 41 percent of Māori children lived in sole-parent families in 1996. This compares with 29 percent of Pacific Islands children, 17 percent of European children and 12 percent of Asian children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (12,618 comments) says:

    But meanwhile the old woman’s kids are very real, and they need to eat something…

    The lament of another do-gooder, who should start by asking that of the biological fathers.
    Oh no, that’s too cold-hearted for this socialist paradise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,337 comments) says:

    Perhaps they could eat the biological fathers iff they’re not paying their fair share.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Correction-

    “where other taxpayers, regardless of how short they might be of cash, are forced to provide money to a huge and widely abused slush fund kept in place by corrupt politicians and ignorant loser voters who abuse the process of democracy by using government primarily as an insurance scheme that pays out on stupidity.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    If you’re saying the current system’s not very good Redbaiter, I agree with you.

    So what’s your suggestion for fixing this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    But meanwhile the old woman’s kids are very real, and they need to eat something…

    Awesome, first though lets see her weekly budget before we hand over more of our hard earned cash.
    How much goes on smokes, booze or the pokies? Does she have Sky TV? How much is her Internet plan? Or her mobile phone plan for that matter? What is the total she owes on her credit cards? And which bank was dumb enough to give her one?!? And finally how much does she owe to dodgy Sth Akl finance companies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***So what’s your suggestion for fixing this?***

    @ RRM,

    As I have noted previously, many people in this situation suffer from low future time orientation. They are incapable of using contraception regularly. My modest suggestion is to make contraception shots a condition of eligibility for welfare payments. They would be part of the reciprocal obligation entailed in receiving money from another person/organisation.

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    As I have noted previously, many people in this situation suffer from low future time orientation.

    Does ” low future time orientation” actually mean anything? I doubt it.

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

    Pure and simple.. A baby production line. Close to Henry Ford who only produced black cars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. duggledog (1,103 comments) says:

    Grendel ‘i am not sure if there are many people trying to get pregnant just for the money,’

    LMAO Ha ha fuck me dude you have just given your location as a leafy suburb. That’s exactly what happens, in many many places around NZ, for many many years

    Loads of girls in high schools (used to) time their pregnancies to happen the year after they finish at school. Ask somebody, anybody in WINZ in any of the classic areas; Far North, East Coast etc etc.

    You should get out more often

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

    Look who popped her head out of the lake -’Water-woman’!

    Care to explain your ‘corporate welfare beneficiaries’? Are they from the sector that creates employment and wealth in this country, and pays the taxes you want to get your sticky fingers on? Spend the rest of your life trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg if you wish, but stop inflicting your warped views on the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Rightandleft (574 comments) says:

    I don’t think all beneficiaries are living the high life, but handing them still more government money isn’t necessarily the answer. Personally I know of a family where the mum has already had 3 kids by 2 dads, the second of which is still with her. They live on a benefit in near squalor. They have a car but no money to put fuel in it unless her parents help. They had no food to feed the kids one weekend so parents came to the rescue again buying lots of meat and dairy only to arrive and discover they have no refrigerator to put the food in. They have no heat and use an LPG bbq inside the lounge to heat the house. They have no beds, only mattresses on the floor. They DO have a 55 inch brand new TV and they both drink and smoke. He doesn’t work at all and is trying to get on invalid benefit because of seizures, though they don’t stop him hunting, driving, or doing anything other than working. He is late 20s and never had a real job. She works part-time at near minimum wage, didn’t finish high school.

    So here’s the rub, she’s pregnant with number 4 and it was no accident. They’ve been trying for over a year. She has 3 boys now and wants a girl. Child Services has already been onto them about maltreatment of the 3 they have but none have been removed. Not abuse mind you, just not well-fed, poorly clothed. So they’re having another kid and of course they do so because they just naturally rely on the govt doling out more money for them to subsist on. Are they living the high life? Of course not. But give them more money and all they’ll do is drink and smoke more, have another kid, and mistreat it too.

    There has to be a safety net of course and we can’t punish the kids for the parents’ mistakes, but the current system doesn’t seem to be working either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dave_c_ (205 comments) says:

    What a load of mamby pamby PC cow-towers we have in this country – What we need is someone (or a party) with balls – Make it impossible for those who deliberately feed from the public trough of welfare, to continue to do so without some prid-pro-quo of ethics and constraint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Rightandleft (224) Says:
    November 9th, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Sterilization for these sort after the first baby…its the only answer. I hate paying for scum losers to breed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nasska (9,489 comments) says:

    Rightandleft

    Not long ago we thrashed the subject of WINZ paying the beneficiary’s rent & power direct & loading the remainder onto a debit card which couldn’t be used to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or Lotto.

    Would sure solve a few problems for the couple you describe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    I never realised that SHOE was newspeak for a State House Occupancy Emplacement till now! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Key could show some leadership on the issue and instruct Paula Benefit to implement said idea Nasska…tui ad…” hellooooo JK..helloooooo!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    “A sector that is dwindling more every day as those riding in the cart grow to be much greater in number than those who are pulling it. ”

    Well said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Longknives (4,039 comments) says:

    As someone who worked at WINZ for a very short time after University I can confirm there are literally thousands of walking baby factories out there who are simply laughing all the way to the bank! At the time I worked two jobs (bartending at nights) and still couldn’t match the net income of these feral,unwashed professional bludgers….
    And as for the state of the children…that’s another story- lets just say New Zealand is going to be a very troubled place in ten years time…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. the conservative (57 comments) says:

    That says it all; the parasite people the left is propagating and pushing; the so-called victims that need our help; the people that can’t make it on their own as the self-reliant and responsible are so unjust; that somehow the world owes them a living; that somehow others are responsible for their sad and deluded existence.
    Should I crawl up and shoot myself for being aware of the falsehoods progressives are propagating? NO! The world, apart from leftist dullards, is aware of their communist agenda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. mikenmild (8,762 comments) says:

    A succinct explanation of the importance of concentrating on children rather than what we hate about their parents:
    http://www.listener.co.nz/current-affairs/economy/the-poverty-trap/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. hemihua (28 comments) says:

    Mises had it right:

    “Unemployment doles can have no other effect than the perpetuation of unemployment”
    “Assistance granted to the unemployed does not dispose of unemployment. It makes it easier for the unemployed to remain idle”
    “All almsgiving inevitably tends to pauperize the recipient”
    “It is not capitalism which is responsible for the evils of mass unemployment, but the policy which paralyses its working”

    My opinion is that all this welfare is what has really destroyed the family unit – once upon a time these people would have been supported by friends and family. Now ‘society’ – to whom the recipient is anonymous – is expected to pick up the tab. Why would family support family when the government (or everyone else but them) will do it for them? One could expect there to be a correlation between the size of welfare provided and support provided by friends and family. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

    Penny – agree with you regarding corporate welfare. But remember just as the ‘lazy bludgers’ and ‘poor’ are not one and the same, nor is ‘crony capitalism’ and ‘captalism’. There are those who are wealthy because they are providing goods and services that society values (and are free to purchase or reject, unlike state based solutions) as opposed to those who gain wealth through corruption. Food for thought next time you’re campaigning against ‘the rich’ as if they are a homogenous group of greedy corrupt old white men.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. mikenmild (8,762 comments) says:

    “all this welfare is what has really destroyed the family unit – once upon a time these people would have been supported by friends and family.”
    The phrase ‘once upon a time’ is generically limited to fairy tales. Luckily Ludwig von Mises’ work fits within that genre quite comfortably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hemihua (28 comments) says:

    A fairy tale? The results look pretty real to me:
    - High unemployment
    - High debt
    - Ever growing reliance on welfare / state

    Lets just hope Mises theories around debt are ‘fairy tales’ eh. They’re seeming pretty real to the rest of the world – why do you think we’re in recession?

    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.