NZGames.com Forums

NZGames.com Forums (https://forums.nzgames.com/index.php)
-   Politics (https://forums.nzgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41)
-   -   Random Politics (https://forums.nzgames.com/showthread.php?t=85105)

fixed_truth 14th December 2010 09:56

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!

chubby 14th December 2010 22:43

lets not forget two other gems from today-
'aucklanders hate traffic' and 'users of twitter are narcissists'

leadinjector 15th December 2010 12:03

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.

fixed_truth 15th December 2010 21:39

Pansy to keep travel perks

Quote:

If you thought Pansy Wong's departure from Parliament in disgrace over travel perks meant the end of her travelling at taxpayers' expense…you would be wrong.

In fact, the public will be subsidising her flights for the rest of her life.
That is fucked up.

ZoSo 16th December 2010 18:19

Goffle

fixed_truth 16th December 2010 20:50

^^you expect him to sell a house in this market :p

Lightspeed 18th December 2010 10:37

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.

fixed_truth 20th December 2010 10:32

^^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

fixed_truth 31st January 2011 14:09

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.

Ab 2nd February 2011 22:20

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.

CCS 2nd February 2011 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
quadrumvirate

Did you have to look that up?

chiQ 2nd February 2011 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS
Did you have to look that up?

That's how he talks. His vocabulary is what he uses to compensate for his inadequacies.

CCS 2nd February 2011 23:41

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?

fixed_truth 3rd February 2011 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
Option 1: John Key as PM.

I guess John's hoping that he doesn't need a coalition partner. What's Act got to offer 2-3 seats?, and I'm not sure he could count on the Maori Party.

Yoda 3rd February 2011 11:47

I'd say Key is avoiding even mentioning ACT. I'd say there's a fair few people who regret voting ACT last election...

fixed_truth 6th February 2011 19:29

British PM: Multiculturalism has failed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364...d_news-europe/
Quote:

Prime Minister David Cameron, in a speech attended by world leaders, on Saturday criticized his country’s longstanding policy of multiculturalism, saying it was an outright failure and partly to blame for fostering Islamist extremism.

StN 6th February 2011 21:02

^^ My first thought was "I wonder what Pat Condell has to say about this..."

CCS 8th February 2011 13:31

PM defends aid for 'underclass' in face of attack
Quote:

John Key says the Government has done as much as possible for the poor after the mother of a family he championed said he was a political "arsehole".

In Opposition in 2007, the Prime Minister singled out McGehan Close, Mt Albert, as typical of the "growing underclass" that would be a priority for National.

He visited the Nathan family and invited Joan Nathan's 12-year-old daughter, Aroha, to Waitangi.

But now Mrs Nathan says although she still likes Mr Key personally, as a politician he is an "arsehole" and has done little to help the poor.

"He's just making everything better for high earners and not the low-income ones," she told Campbell Live.

Mrs Nathan, who recently had her sixth child, said her life was no better under Mr Key's Government.

"Bread, milk, everything that we need that is a basic necessity for us is going to be more expensive. It's going to be harder for us to feed our kids."

Something ain't quite right here...

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?

A Corpse 8th February 2011 13:38

Why these people on the bottom rung ever thought National was actually going to help them is beyond me...

CCS 8th February 2011 13:55

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.

Ab 8th February 2011 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS

Further down that article:

Quote:

Aroha, now 16, had got caught up in the wrong crowd and was expelled from Mt Albert Grammar School last year. She was now in Child, Youth and Family care, which Mrs Nathan said was better because "it's a life I can't give her".
1. Go on DPB.
2. Have more babies.
...
4. PROFIT!!!


FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 14:01

Less resources == more babies.

Seems crazy, but that's how humans are the world over.

Ab 8th February 2011 14:03

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.

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 14:10

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.

Saladin 8th February 2011 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS
After the 3rd child, the govt will pay for you to have your tubes tied. Good idea, no?

People (including current ministers) bleat and bleat about nanny state when the government has the audacity to suggest "social engineering" policies like minimum energy efficiency requirements for new homes. Can't imagine how policy like this might go down :P

CCS 8th February 2011 14:11

I wonder what she expects a government lead by any party to do for her. Let's take money out of the equation...

CCS 8th February 2011 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saladin
People (including current ministers) bleat and bleat about nanny state when the government has the audacity to suggest "social engineering" policies like minimum energy efficiency requirements for new homes. Can't imagine how policy like this might go down :P

My suggestion is that it would not be a compulsory tube tying, but voluntary. No more financial aid after 3 children would provide incentive to get the tubes tied. Don't want to accidentally trip and fall on some dick and get pregnant again and have another fucking baby but not get extra money for it? The government can help you make sure that never happens, at no cost to you!

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.

Saladin 8th February 2011 14:22

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?

Ab 8th February 2011 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCS
My suggestion is that it would not be a compulsory tube tying, but voluntary. No more financial aid after 3 children would provide incentive to get the tubes tied.

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.

Hell, you could pay people to get the snip and it would still be a financial win.

GM 8th February 2011 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saladin
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?

Samoa birth rate: 22.92 births/1,000 population (2010 est.)

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

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
Hell, you could pay people to get the snip and it would still be a financial win.

Maaaaybe... but there's demand in NZ for low wage earners that is currently being met by immigration. Perhaps by reducing the number of children raised by those on the DPB, we'll actually lose a valuable labour pool.

CCS 8th February 2011 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saladin
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?

No, not at all. If people in poverty keep having more children - regardless of the reasons why they have more children - then all they are doing is perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Another mouth to feed, more financial strain on the family, another kid likely to go wayward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
Hell, you could pay people to get the snip and it would still be a financial win.

I'd considered that, but then I realised that eventually some idiot would have a wah-wah in the news about how they didn't really want to have their tubes tied but they needed the money and now they regret it and want to have more kids and isn't the government mean and wah wah wah.

CCS 8th February 2011 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed
Maaaaybe... but there's demand in NZ for low wage earners that is currently being met by immigration. Perhaps by reducing the number of children raised by those on the DPB, we'll actually lose a valuable labour pool.

If that labour need is being met by immigration, then how are we losing a valuable labour pool if locals being raised on the DPB have fewer children?

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 15:38

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.

CCS 8th February 2011 15:52

Of course it isn't. Why would yhou think that it is?

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
Hell, you could pay people to get the snip and it would still be a financial win.


CCS 8th February 2011 15:58

::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.

Lightspeed 8th February 2011 16:05

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.

fixed_truth 8th February 2011 16:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ab
Hell, you could pay people to get the snip and it would still be a financial win.

A more applicable option might be a 'contraceptive tax credit' paid to women who choose to use longer term contrecaptive.

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.

CCS 8th February 2011 17:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed
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.

Context, broski, context.


All times are GMT +13. The time now is 00:58.

Powered by Trololololooooo
© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)