Random Politics
"Perhaps for things that arent quite worthy of their own thread, but are perhaps still worthy discussion, or ..... WHATEVER."
WikiLeaks: US preferred National http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=10693932 In other news, sheep like grass! |
lets not forget two other gems from today-
'aucklanders hate traffic' and 'users of twitter are narcissists' |
never understood twitter because of that eh. its like those "what are you reading/listening to" threads, everyone just wants other people to know what they are thinking, but nobody actually reads what anyone else writes. fucking stupid.
|
Pansy to keep travel perks
Quote:
|
|
^^you expect him to sell a house in this market :p
|
Four and a half hours of televised Q&A with Putin.
Politics is a whole nother thing in Russia. Related: Putin reassures Russian whistleblower doctor by telephone. |
^^That Putin guy doesn't seem so bad. Hardly the "Alpha Dog" of World Politics :P
Him singing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULqKRYBzbMo |
Bradford confirms Leftist party talk
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ist-party-talk Surely this would only shift votes from the Green & Maori parties? I can't see this really affecting National. |
It's great for National.
Option 1: John Key as PM. Option 2: A quadrumvirate of Phil Goff, Winston Peters, Sue Bradford, and the Harawira whanau running the country. Roll on election day. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
He talks like that in real life too? Do people ever get bored of him part way through a 5 syllable word and just stop listening?
|
Quote:
|
I'd say Key is avoiding even mentioning ACT. I'd say there's a fair few people who regret voting ACT last election...
|
British PM: Multiculturalism has failed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364...d_news-europe/ Quote:
|
^^ My first thought was "I wonder what Pat Condell has to say about this..."
|
PM defends aid for 'underclass' in face of attack
Quote:
How's this: government provides aid for low income families through benefits like DPB but only up to 3 children. After the 3rd child, the govt will pay for you to have your tubes tied. Good idea, no? |
Why these people on the bottom rung ever thought National was actually going to help them is beyond me...
|
There is only so much that any government can do for people like this. Six kids is a lot to look after, even if some of them are in CYF care. These people create their own problems and they need to help themselves by not constantly shitting out child after child to be born into poverty. We cannot just throw money at them and think that will solve the problem when those six children will only grow up to have another six children of their own, again born into poverty and wondering why the government doesn't just fix anything for them.
The only thing that families with many children contributes positively to is population growth, which we like to keep in positive figures. But contributing to the problem of poverty by increasing the poverty stricken population is only going backwards. Create more jobs? Whoop-de-shit. More people scraping by on minimum wage and still living beyond their means. Hand out a bit of cash? Great shit, that will fix things! /rant over... for the moment. |
Quote:
Quote:
2. Have more babies. ... 4. PROFIT!!! FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU |
Less resources == more babies.
Seems crazy, but that's how humans are the world over. |
But there AREN'T fewer resources for this woman, that's the problem. She doesn't have a resource scarcity, because she's on the DPB. More money just "magically appears". And the more children she has, the more money appears.
|
I think that's the issue. Our society values money, arguably above everything else. If someone has money, they're considered resourced.
But a woman who does not think she can offer her daughter a life, clearly is not resourced. |
Quote:
|
I wonder what she expects a government lead by any party to do for her. Let's take money out of the equation...
|
Quote:
The financial cost to the taxpayer of funding these ops would be more than made up for by the benefit to society the op would bring. |
To be successful though it'd need the primary driver behind having more children to be" getting more financial assistance". Do poor families where there isn't a DPB, like back in the islands (omg racist!) still have more kids?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
New Zealand birth rate: 13.81 births/1,000 population (2010 est.) Cambodia: 25.58 births/1,000 population (2010 est.) Norway: 10.9 births/1,000 population (2010 est.) Ranked in order: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...=au&rank=75#ws |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's a good point, although workforce is more than just bodies to do the job. Certainly a largely immigrant work force would not come without complications.
My point was to highlight that discouraging those dependent on government benefits from having children isn't an automatic economic win. |
Of course it isn't. Why would yhou think that it is?
|
Quote:
|
::facepalm::
You're getting confused between an across-the-board outright economic win and an economic win related specifically to the issue of how the burden on society of poverty stricken families having too many children could be eased. Please try to keep it in context. I know your mind in prone to wandering into irrelavent territory, but do try to make an effort not to. |
Focusing on "the burden on society of poverty stricken families having too many children" seems overly moralistic to me. Particularly if you're only willing to consider how such families drain society and not how they add to society.
|
Quote:
I think that setting a max DBP amount for say three children would just mean you've got kids growing up in an even more impoverished environment. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +13. The time now is 14:49. |
Powered by Trololololooooo
© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2024
Site paid for by members (love you guys)