Hard News: Deja Vu
249 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Paul Holmes feels the calvary of those who rise above the throng as a visceral, personal thing. He has been there, he knows the pain of being of the annointed ones. He and Paula are connected, you see, by their shared genius in the face of the slings and arrows of those who are blind to it.
In reality, he is a puff-headed fool who looks like he is sucker for motivational speakers and self-improvement snake oil merchants.
His reality is a lot different, he had to crash his aircraft three times until he realised he couldn't fly, and similar delusions of infallibility seem to colour his views on Paula Bennett as well. I suppose he thinks he and Paula are not just connected by their shared genius for the common man, they have something else that 99% of the lesser peasants on benefits don't have - children who hang out with criminals.
Paul is on shakey ground when it comes to his patronising attitudes to welfare. After all, I bet Jennifer Johnston's children won't end up in court.
-
To be honest, when picking people to write supportive articles about, I'll give him that Paula Bennett is a better pick than Tony Veitch.
All relative of course.
-
Paul Holmes, since when have we taken anything he says seriously
-
On the hand if Tapu Misu thinks class can make a difference to a 17 year old unmarried mother, then I am inclined to drop her into the Paul Holmes class of fools
There might have ben a time when wealth could sweep thses things away, it probably still can but I doubt if it is ever easy on the girl involved -
Email Web
Bill English isn't wrong when he says he is, in his way, saving the taxpayer by accepting nearly $1000 a week towards the cost of living in his own Wellington house. If he had taken up the free Wellington accommodation to which Cabinet ministers are entitled, the bill, taking in various additional costs, could have been a bit higher.
The real question is, "Why are we buying Bill English a house?"
I guess you could say that if he were renting we would be buying a house for another property owner but in my eyes that is not the same but just as immoral. These buggers get paid enough to pay their way like the rest of us. I work hard for my ...
(yuk, that sounds awfully Kiwiblogy but then , boot other foot etc.) -
I don't really think Bill English is doing anything to wrong. After all, the system is there and he is just using it. Who wouldn't? It is a bit of a dodge - but if that is the worst of then then all is well in my book.
I think the media is determined to generate a scandal as salivating as the UK rorts, but we are not rated the least corrupt country in the world for nothing.
-
Paul Holmes cracks me up - "New Zealand faces a massive welfare payout every week of every year"... what about jumped-up public servants appearing as TV presenters? How much did we pay Holmes, D'Audney, Hawkesby et al? The bill was hundreds of thousands a week - and (based on ROI) retraining them at $25k a year might have been preferable...
-
Email Web
After all, the system is there and he is just using it. Who wouldn't? It is a bit of a dodge -
If they can change the rules that were there to help the poor they can change the rules that line the pockets of the wealthy. You know, belt, tighten, tough times, etc.
-
3410,
Email
Bill English isn't wrong when he says he is, in his way, saving the taxpayer by accepting nearly $1000 a week towards the cost of living in his own Wellington house.
In the same way that you might save someone a broken nose by kicking them in the nuts instead.
-
I don't mind us maintaining the house. Like Russell I mind the fact that he's got us maintaining the Wellington one which is where his whole family lives, not the Southland one which is where he goes when he visits his electorate. Seems to me the rule should be "you pay for your family home, where ever that is, we'll pay for an apartment either in your electorate or in Wellington".
-
Email Web
I don't mind us maintaining the house.
But I do object to paying his entire mortgage. $900.00 a week would pay mine twice over. I mean, FFS, it's not like he's unemployed. I suppose we'll be paying for his perm next.
-
it was hard not to think that that he doesn't really understand the circumstances in which young people get the Independent Youth Benefit now: they're there because they cannot live with their parents (generally for very good reasons)
What kind of good reasons?
-
Email Web
What kind of good reasons?
You really have to ask?
Let's see, Their parents;
Don't like the fact that they are gay.
Have treated them like shit since they were born.
Ran away and abandoned the kids.
They're dead.
Should I go on?. -
Email Web
Ok. I will.
They don't have a basement. ;-) -
You really have to ask?
Let's see, Their parents;
Don't like the fact that they are gay.
Have treated them like shit since they were born.
Ran away and abandoned the kids.
They're dead.
Should I go on?.That's good? I see what you're saying, the family is basically fucked, they're cooked, it's a done deal, no hope of rehabilitation, no alcoholism clinics, no counselling, no intervention, just send the youth on their way. You're right Steve, what you have here is a grade A plan for developing a functional and harmonious society, the adj 'good' is entirely appropriate.
-
You cannot possibly think that it's better for a teen to stay in an abusive home than live by themselves.
-
You cannot possibly think that it's better for a teen to stay in an abusive home than live by themselves.
Of course not never implied it, did mention rehabilitation, alcoholism clinics, counselling, intervention, but heck, easy ideas to ignore, basic mistake to make. And what they hey, why try to solve the underlying problems? Why not just give the kids money!
For good reasons.
-
Using my second favourite movie ever to make your point doesn't incline me any more to your view, Mark. :)
I think it's a bit ludicrous to assume that independent teens haven't been through all the counselling and intervention hoops already, frankly.
-
Of course not never implied it, did mention rehabilitation, alcoholism clinics, counselling, intervention, but heck, easy ideas to ignore, basic mistake to make. And what they hey, why try to solve the underlying problems? Why not just give the kids money
No, it's giving a small number of young people the support they need to live, because they "cannot live with their parents". I would think that implicitly covers off the other options.
Instead of "child in an abusive home", substitute "woman in an abusive relationship". That might help.
-
Email
Regarding subsidies, I know this is shooting fish in a barrel territory, but it's ironic that Roger Douglas got rid of subsidies for farmers and advocated user pays, but is quite happy for the tax payer to subsidise his holidays.
-
Might help with what? This benefit without significant backup plan simply perpetuates the problem. It's an easy out for irresponsible parents. It's a take the money and run option.
We say to the kids, "well you had a shitter of an upbringing, we're sorry you couldn't deal with that, we can't deal with that either. We don't expect you to have any other family, we don't expect family as distant as say an uncle or aunt to be involved in caring for you, why would they, their just your aunts, your uncles, your grandparents, we understand it's nothing to do with them. SO we have this check for you...."
-
Do we, Mark? Is that what we do, or are you just making shit up?
-
Email Web
Roger Douglas got rid of subsidies for farmers and advocated user pays, but is quite happy for the tax payer to subsidise his holidays.
Ah but... Don't you get it? The tax payer pays bonuses to those that deserve them, you know, those that have proven how worthy they are by accumulating wealth. Not those that need them. That would just encourage those dole bludgers to stay at home and watch their big screen TVs eh?
-
Might help with what? This benefit without significant backup plan simply perpetuates the problem. It's an easy out for irresponsible parents. It's a take the money and run option.
I don't see how it rules out practical support for 16 and 17 year-olds who can't live with their parents, whether because their parents are abusive or merely dead.
The criteria for receipt of the benefit are here.
-
Email Web
Look, 16 to 18 year olds are figuring out who and what they are, as individuals. For those who don't simply slot into territory education or find a job thats going to help them into adulthood, give them the pitiful youth dole so that they can experiment. They will learn to be frugal, as they, if encouraged, travel around the country figuring stuff out.
They aren't all going to become stereo typically unemployed. Some will drift about looking for there niche. It can't be any worse an idea that spending government revenue on training them to instinctively obey military orders. While subservient workforces might be desirable on the surface, below there will be waisted creative potential.
Another plan that might work, is to set aside an island, maybe Durville as a option for hunter gather training. But first we will have to send in the military. Because Durville Island doesn't belong to New Zealand anymore. Another possibility, is to offer fishing quoter to unemployed youth that would like to earn a small portion of the cake.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.