National Thus Far

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Juju

If you believe someone could still be poor after adhering to those requirements, please explain how.

Social, cultural and personal trauma, pervasive racism, sexism, classism, patriarchy, etc., etc., etc.

You seem only interested in peoples actions, while not being interested in the precipitating factors leading up to those actions?

I mean shit, it's scientifically demonstrated that if you are human and under-resourced you will have a HIGHER biological imperative to reproduce than someone who is human and highly resourced.

You're basically say that poor people should stop being human.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by adonis

g voters who voted for National this time around who didn't really know much about him prior to him becoming leader.

The thing is, he's EVEN MORE POPULAR now. With eighteen months of learning what JK is like, the NZ public has decided they really like him.

[CCS]

I like him because he smiles lots.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by CCS

I like him because he smiles lots.

That's basically it, he is far more charismatic that Goff. Goff is just.. awkward. It's not enough to be good at your job, you gotta sell it, and Labour are pretty direction-less atm, despite the ample ammunition the current government have provided. There were other options to Goff at one point, like Maharey and Mallard. But Maharey left and Mallard lost it and got into a bit of fisticuffs. All of a sudden Goff was all there was.

TBH Dr Kennedy Graham should be PM IMO.

[madmaxii]

Dr Who?


Oh wait.........

[JP]

Juju, the point is not trying to find ways to justify you feeling superior about yourself.

I'm sure you are just so great and all and we know poor people 'deserve' to be poor and all these great ideas.

The problem is your way of thinking is based on subjective value judgments. No one cares what some other group's subjective value judgments of them are, it's pointless, it's just ego stroking. If this type of thinking actually produced anything productive other than defending inadequate status quo situations, the world would be a utopia. It seems to be the default way of human thinking about social problems.

You also seem to miss the irony that you're basically saying, well if they'd just be happy working full time to earn just enough to be single with no kids and a few luxuries then they wouldn't be so poor! Plus as Cynos pointed out we need kids, poor people working in factories 45 hours a week and having kids are WAY more productive than wealthy people on an objective rather than income scale.

If rich people showed any restraint the world would be a completely different place. You're seriously judging people who have little trying to feel like they have more. I'm assuming you must seriously chastise wealthy people for their discretionary spending then yes? They have a lot and want more, by some kind of moral standard, that makes them a lot worse.

The point is moral shit is just bullshit and hypocritical. Just ditch it, it doesn't help. Some people are rich, that's ok, I see no reason why that has to be a problem if we can just sort shit out for the bottom half.

A useful checklist is more like someone born into poverty has a:

Increased chance of exposure to abuse
Increased chance of neglect
Lower availability of 'positive' role models.
Lower availability of opportunity in general
Increased chance of single parent homes

I mean the list can go on forever, "don't buy cars and P" is racist, ignorant and unhelpful. It's also an extraordinarily common opinion, which is why poverty is still going strong even in Western countries. But we need the voting population to insist action is taken on things that might actually help, rather than feel good things like "three strikes" and "tough on crime" that are in reality, very easy on crime and very tough on human beings.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by JP

"don't buy cars and P" is racist

Who the what now?

[Lightspeed]

Yeah, I'm not sure about that either, but I'm pretty much on board with the rest.

I have to say, I don't mind rich people who've worked for their money. It's the individuals and institutions that use their wealth and power to stay in wealth and power, regardless of whether in benefits the rest that concerns me.

[StN]

Originally Posted by Ab

The thing is, he's EVEN MORE POPULAR now. With eighteen months of learning what JK is like, the NZ public has decided they really like him.

He talks about his balls being cut off - just like normal folk.

[Lightspeed]

JK is NZ's George Dubbaya, I reckon, except less of a dick.

And Labour is the equivalent of the Democrat party during the Bush years.

[fidgit]

CCS, my comment was that Key came from no where, not that he came from behind. I didn't expect Labour to win the last election, it wasn't surprising at all that National won. And, yes, during the election we learned all about John. But before he was put forward as leader in the build up to that election, he was completly off my radar (unlike a lot of other National at-the-time-Spokespeople).

No one expected Labour to win the last election, Labour voters included. And no one expects them to do any better until a better leader is found.

(Enjoying the Green's climb atm though, despite everyone else adopting Green climate-change policy as status quo. They'll burn it all up on another Anti-Smacking bill though :/)

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

JK is NZ's George Dubbaya, I reckon, except less of a dick.

And Labour is the equivalent of the Democrat party during the Bush years.

I think that's way too rough. Bush demonstrated on several occasions that he was actually stupid (the upside book after being told about 9/11?). JK's got book smarts, you can't argue with that. I just don't like his ideology ("there's room at the top, they are telling you still. First you must learn how to smile as you kill").

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fidgit

They'll burn it all up on another Anti-Smacking bill though :/

harsh/true

[CCS]

Originally Posted by fidgit

CCS, my comment was that Key came from no where

My comment was that he didn't.

No one expected Labour to win the last election, Labour voters included.

The amount of howling and grizzling and sulking by lefties after Labour lost suggests otherwise. The Labour party themselves certainly expected to win. Their entire last term they thought they were dead certs.

And no one expects them to do any better until a better leader is found.

And that the truth.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by fidgit

(the upside book after being told about 9/11?)

OMG It was in a picture on the internet so it must be true!

[TD]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

JK is NZ's George Dubbaya, I reckon, except less of a dick.

Key and National won convincingly
Key can pronounce nuclear
Key hasn't ridden on his father's coat tales
Key is a self made man
Key hasn't taken NZ to war
Key isn't a religious conservative

I'm not sure where you are coming from. They're not terribly similar.

[madmaxii]

[CCS]

Originally Posted by CCS

And that the truth.

I think I meant to say "ain't"

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by TD

Key and National won convincingly
Key can pronounce nuclear
Key hasn't ridden on his father's coat tales
Key is a self made man
Key hasn't taken NZ to war
Key isn't a religious conservative

I'm not sure where you are coming from. They're not terribly similar.

I didn't say he was similar to GB, but rather he was NZ's version of GB.

They both have a folksy way of dealing with the media and public, that's for sure.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by CCS

My comment was that he didn't.

What was he doing before the was leader? (sincere question).

[CCS]

Finance spokesman.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I didn't say he was similar to GB, but rather he was NZ's version of GB.

They both have a folksy way of dealing with the media and public, that's for sure.

I see what the problem is. After the Helen Clark years, you're not used to someone being honest and open. Now you interpret it as "folksy".

[Lightspeed]

lol, that may well be.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Ab

I see what the problem is. After the Helen Clark years, you're not used to someone being honest and open. Now you interpret it as "folksy".

Mk, so tell me, why did Richard Worth resign again? Then there was all the BS about just doing a "stock take" of NZ's mineral wealth... yeah, right. Then there's this..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpIXg...layer_embedded

..and after that he has the nerve to go on Campbell live and say that National were never for helping the US, only supportive of their right to invade. Which in itself is pretty bad, but it's still a lie. Honest? Put the crack pipe down.

[Ab]

Hey, I don't recall ever hearing Helen Clark refer to her vasectomy at a press conference.

http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/pm-d...-media-3573934

[Lightspeed]

I bet that was totally intentional. It'll probably make him more affable to swing voters, make him seem more like a kiwi bloke. As opposed to the more aloof image Helen portrayed.

Kinda like some of Bush's gaffes.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I bet that was totally intentional. It'll probably make him more affable to swing voters, make him seem more like a kiwi bloke. As opposed to that barren old dyke, Helen.

[fixed_truth]

Key is alot of things, many of them admirable. But imo he's been caught out lying a few too many times to be called 'honest'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u18hk8lzMBU
Blind Trust he he

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by JP

Juju, the point is not trying to find ways to justify you feeling superior about yourself.

I'm sure you are just so great and all and we know poor people 'deserve' to be poor and all these great ideas.

The problem is your way of thinking is based on subjective value judgments. No one cares what some other group's subjective value judgments of them are, it's pointless, it's just ego stroking. If this type of thinking actually produced anything productive other than defending inadequate status quo situations, the world would be a utopia. It seems to be the default way of human thinking about social problems.

You also seem to miss the irony that you're basically saying, well if they'd just be happy working full time to earn just enough to be single with no kids and a few luxuries then they wouldn't be so poor! Plus as Cynos pointed out we need kids, poor people working in factories 45 hours a week and having kids are WAY more productive than wealthy people on an objective rather than income scale.

If rich people showed any restraint the world would be a completely different place. You're seriously judging people who have little trying to feel like they have more. I'm assuming you must seriously chastise wealthy people for their discretionary spending then yes? They have a lot and want more, by some kind of moral standard, that makes them a lot worse.

The point is moral shit is just bullshit and hypocritical. Just ditch it, it doesn't help. Some people are rich, that's ok, I see no reason why that has to be a problem if we can just sort shit out for the bottom half.

A useful checklist is more like someone born into poverty has a:

Increased chance of exposure to abuse
Increased chance of neglect
Lower availability of 'positive' role models.
Lower availability of opportunity in general
Increased chance of single parent homes

I mean the list can go on forever, "don't buy cars and P" is racist, ignorant and unhelpful. It's also an extraordinarily common opinion, which is why poverty is still going strong even in Western countries. But we need the voting population to insist action is taken on things that might actually help, rather than feel good things like "three strikes" and "tough on crime" that are in reality, very easy on crime and very tough on human beings.

Holy shit, epic post.

Juju, I'll just add that when I married my wife I earned $27,000 per annum as a case manager - she was completing a diploma, and didn't qualify for a student allowance.

I was paying the usual 19.5% (+ 1.1% ACC levy) tax, so around $5832.00 pa, my student loan repayments were $1150.40 pa.

After tax I had $20,017.00, after my rent of $220 per week, I had $8577.59 for the rest of my costs. $164.59 per week. We had a washing machine on HP, and a Ford Laser my wife had acquired previous to her study at $25 per week. And of course, moving to Christchurch made my asthma bad, and so my medical costs increased (let's say $60 every three months).

I felt pretty frigging poor. Then there was the time I needed a root canal. Boy, that was a hoot.

Anyway, that was when my boss at WINZ gently advised me to apply for non-beneficiary Accommodation Supplement with them. They had a special case manager for handling applications from case managers - I was far from the only one, it turned out. Also, they gave me a non-recoverable grant to get my tooth fixed. Guess they thought I was poor too. Was always a good feeling when I dealt with my clients who got more on the benefit than I did.

2) Not buy a $15k WRX with blow job valve on instant finance. Tick
3) Smoke any wage earnings they do earn away in a P pipe. Tick
4) Not commit crime and get a history, stopping their employment potential.Tick
5) Work hard at school. Tick
6) Gamble their money away at the TAB.Tick

Why was I poor?

[Juju]

Because you put yourself in a situation that would better your future (wifey studying).

Anyway, I'm just gonna say that I suck at arguing on the internets and I don't really have much of a comeback. My original whine about babies and WRX's I guess was more bitching about people who put themselves in those situations, and then expect government hand outs. "Waaah im poor, Let's feign sickness so I can get on the sickness benefit. Cmon kids, jump in the WRX so we can goto WINZ to sort this claim out, then you can all hang outside the TAB while daddy watches the horsies".
However this thread is arguing about how the tax changes make life harder for the true poor who don't have the choice of saving. Carry on.
immashuddupnow.

Except JP. ""don't buy cars and P" is racist"...wtf?

[Ab]

WRXs are made by Subaru, a Japanese company. P is manufactured using pseudoephedrine imported in bulk from SE Asia.

Why do you hate Azns, Juju?

[Lightspeed]

Kiwibank sale ruled out - for now

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder how many so called "mums and dads" would actually get an opportunity to invest?

Also, I don't know if "Kiwibank will never be sold" "this term" can be called honest.

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Kiwibank sale ruled out - for now

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder how many so called "mums and dads" would actually get an opportunity to invest?

Also, I don't know if "Kiwibank will never be sold" "this term" can be called honest.

(I haven't read the article, but assume I know what it's about)
If they do it the way they did for Auckland Airport, I can't see why that wouldn't work. Limit packages of shares to hardly any (Auckland Airport was 2000 iirc, but I don't know how many they made available all up).
Of course this doesn't get around the issue of someone like ANZ offering to buy those shares at double what they're made available for initially. Perhaps a statute on selling them? Maybe they could sell them only to people that are Kiwi Bank customers - I'd be keen to own a (very very very small) part of my bank.

-edit-
To be clear, I oppose the sale of the Bank, and wish it to remain a Government Owned Enterprise.

[fixed_truth]

Hey guyz lets channel a chunk of kiwi banks revenue to straight to the rich

[JP]

AB, how does JK's ass taste? Seriously, i've never seen an intelligent NZer so crazily bias towards one party.

JK is a lot of things, honest though? I mean come on now, Jesus even my friends who vote National have never tried to pull that one.

Anyone on either side who tries to claim that there's some considerable difference between the integrity of labour and national is only able to believe that because of their massive bias. There are differences, but nothing close to the level that you pretend.

I only point this out because it strikes me as so...weird? You sound almost like a troll with how one sided you are.

[crocos]

To me an honest politician is one that strives to better the country.

Even if they need to lie like the proverbial devil himself.

I feel that Key is actually trying to do this, so I feel he's "honest" to his job. Doesn't mean I think he and the other National folks are necessarily right with this new tax cut + GST rise regime.

[Bandalador]

Originally Posted by JP

You sound almost like a troll with how one sided you are.

Says the blindly socialist pinko from the cheap seats.

I agree with crocos.
On paper he is the ideal type of person to be a leading politician in that he damn sure isn't doing it for the money/perks so there has to be at least a good size portion of him that actually wants to do the job for the country and not for himself.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by crocos

To me an honest politician is one that strives to better the country.

For who? Selling Kiwibank next term is going to better the country for average Kiwis about as much as Trustbank being bought out by Westpac did.

[CCS]

Depends who buys it. If the govt keeps a share majority, is that so bad?

[SickBo@Work]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Guess they thought I was poor too. Was always a good feeling when I dealt with my clients who got more on the benefit than I did.

And when you were in such financial hardship did your children have a heightened chance of abuse, neglect, lack of positive role models & opportunities and were you and your wife about to break up?

A lack of materiel wealth or poverty really has very little bearing on the forementioned. It's a symptom like the rest rather than the cause that JP claims it is.