So here are the 'benefit bludgers'
George
details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
'bludgers.'
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10616933&pnum=0
rob
$1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including some
not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
not meeting his job search obligations.
$1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
children, most from other parents.
$1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight children,
including those of his son, who left the children and went to Australia.
Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children has returned
to its mother.
$1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA at
university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
JohnO
> After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt released
> details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
>
> rob
> $1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including some
> not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
> not meeting his job search obligations.
>
> $1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
> children, most from other parents.
>
> $1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight children,
> including those of his son, who left the children and went to Australia.
> Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children has returned
> to its mother.
>
> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA at
> university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
According to the article 13 of the top 20 are in this situation. So 7
are not which still leaves a pretty bad bludger scenario.
Check out this fucker:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10617045
This one's freeloading state house:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616998
However this one takes the gold medal for outstanding bludging::
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3184336/Couple-on-benefits-since-1984
So there are plenty of cases where benefits are appropriate - we all
knew that. But the bludgers are taking money away from those people.
Rich...@hotmail.com
<Beau...@Carnations.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:19:23 +1300, George wrote:
>
>> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA
>> at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>
>Sounds like a woman doing her utmost to get off the dpb and into a reasonable wage.
Don't worry. Paula Bennett will stop that. National need a few
'bludgers' to justify not increasing benefits. After all, John Key
needs someone to pay for a few more blocks of his cheese . . .
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 10:19�pm, "George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt released
>> details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
>> 'bludgers.'http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid...
>>
>> rob
>> $1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including some
>> not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
>> not meeting his job search obligations.
>>
>> $1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
>> children, most from other parents.
>>
>> $1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight children,
>> including those of his son, who left the children and went to Australia.
>> Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children has returned
>> to its mother.
>>
>> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA at
>> university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>
>According to the article 13 of the top 20 are in this situation. So 7
>are not which still leaves a pretty bad bludger scenario.
You mean after adding 10,000 to total beneficiary numbers (just why
are so many more on sickness benefits? - are National trying to hide
unemployment?), they've found 7 that they find concerning? Wow, they
certainly had their priorities right, didn't they JohnO!
>
>Check out this fucker:
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10617045
No evidence of sexual activity there.
>This one's freeloading state house:
>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616998
That appears to be the same story. Two identical stories don't make
two 'bludgers' JohnO. Its probably similar to National announcing any
expenditure three times so it appears they are spending more . . .)
Do you think this Alan Wilkins has been getting lessons in housing
allowances from Bill English?
>
>However this one takes the gold medal for outstanding bludging::
>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3184336/Couple-on-benefits-since-1984
Well a newspaper story is as good as a trial, isn't it? Just what law
has been broken, JohnO? What are National planning to do about this
case?
>So there are plenty of cases where benefits are appropriate - we all
>knew that. But the bludgers are taking money away from those people.
Oh really? And those that gave away billions in tax cuts for
themselves and others on teh top tax rate are not bigger bludgers?
George
"JohnO" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3c0a3ac-642c-4b07...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
But where are all the multitudes of bludgers people were moaning about ?
Lots of moaning about the 2 women who were drawing the DPB, all sorts of
name calling, right wingers foaming at the mouth in rage, the gnashing of
teeth, anger at theft of taxes etc.
But where are all the bludgers?
rob
hellicopter
One gang family was taking W&I to the cleaners.
Funny how W&I can mess around like that, let a
few toads get into the system and stay there,
And then turn round and use a few nasty people
to justify more bureaucrats!
You did notice that. National want to use grow
the bungling bureaucracy!
Its clear that those who abuse the system leave
a significant financial trail.
Even one individual who turned up in every W&I
up and down the country to claim as a different
beneficiary!
Surely we don't need more investigators who
failed to find the single biggest fraudster in
the history of welfare, or more rules to
corner people into giving up and walking away
to beg on the streets.
What we need is to distance the policing,
and the prosecuting of welfare crime, to the
police and the prosecution services.
You see the feature that's most missing from the
reporters like,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3184336/Couple-on-benefits-since-1984
Is a feature on why this couple managed to do this for
so long.
And the answer is simple, separation of powers.
Do not let the welfare system have its own policing
force and its own prosecution service.
Better still just dump the discrimination to start
with, ban all grants and other extras, shutdown
WINZ and provide everyone with a negative tax credit
redeemable if they don't make the poverty wage.
As for Bennetts plans to implement the National
policy put on hold by the recession, good luck with
that, many commentators think the pain is ahead of us.
religionofpeas
> On Dec 22, 10:19 pm, "George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> So there are plenty of cases where benefits are appropriate - we all
> knew that. But the bludgers are taking money away from those people.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Translation: There are plenty of cases where people who aren't
necessarily bad find themselves in difficult times, so JohnO feels
happy about taking money from others to give to them, even though he'd
NEVER class himself as one of the bludgers who is taking money away.
JohnO, if you care so much about any of these people, then dip your
own pocket, but keep your filthy mitts out of mine.
JohnO
Clearly you are new around here.
retro
> details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
>
> rob
> $1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including some
> not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
> not meeting his job search obligations.
>
> $1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
> children, most from other parents.
>
> $1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight children,
> including those of his son, who left the children and went to Australia.
> Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children has returned
> to its mother.
>
> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA at
> university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
So what those people who are caring for all those kids deserve all the
money they can get; to get those kids off to a reasonable start in
life.
Sounds to me like they're doing a bloody great job, get off their back
monkey
retro
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:19:23 +1300, George wrote:
> > at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>
>
> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
Sounds that way to me as well.
Fair enough that notorious family who were highlighted on the news
last night need to be sorted out somehow, send the army in perhaps.
But tarring all beneficiaries with the same brush is just stupid when
most of them are doing the best they can under the circumstances
and raising 6 - 10 children ....?
well that's tough
Allistar
Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
irresponsible.
--
A.
Brian 6424
> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
> irresponsible.
What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister? Perhaps your
authoritarian National party will intervene and dictate to
beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
greybeard
"George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hgq836$cmc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
|
| >
||
| But where are all the bludgers?
|
| rob
|
The bludgers are all those getting Working For Families benefits.
They are just working the system.
But that's the Labour Party's fault.
They want the wholecountry on the welfare tit. Tax everyone harshly and
then pork-barrel the electorate for personal electoral ( and monetary)
profit.
Sailor Sam
What a norbett.
Can you tell with absolute certainty the amount of money you will earn
in the next 12 months? What about the next 10 years.
Can you tell with absolute certainty that the relationship you are in
will survive the next 12 months? What about the next 10 years (and don't
forget illness and/or sudden death)
Brian 6424
> Don't worry. Paula Bennett will stop that. National need a few
> 'bludgers' to justify not increasing benefits. After all, John Key
> needs someone to pay for a few more blocks of his cheese . . .
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3188355/Cancel-dole-after-year-says-Bennett
It sounds like the only solution that the National party can come up
with is to simply cancel benefits each year and force them to re-
apply. Perhaps the next step will be to introduce an application fee,
thereby providing a juicy incentive for a private company to take over
the administration of the social welfare service.
Allistar
> On Dec 23, 7:57 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
>> irresponsible.
>
> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
> Perhaps your
> authoritarian National party
?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party supporter?
> will intervene and dictate to
> beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
What's more responsible? Having children you cannot afford to have and then
expecting other people to pay for them, or deciding not to have them in the
first place?
Your advocating a system that punishes one person because another decides to
have kids they cannot afford. That's corrupt - people should be accountable
for their actions and should not expect other to be forced to pay for them.
--
A.
Allistar
> Allistar wrote:
>> retro wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 10:45 pm, Carnations <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:19:23 +1300, George wrote:
>>>>> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing
>>>>> BA at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last
>>>>> month
>>>> Sounds like a woman doing her utmost to get off the dpb and into a
>>>> reasonable wage.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
>>> Sounds that way to me as well.
>>>
>>> Fair enough that notorious family who were highlighted on the news
>>> last night need to be sorted out somehow, send the army in perhaps.
>>>
>>> But tarring all beneficiaries with the same brush is just stupid when
>>> most of them are doing the best they can under the circumstances
>>> and raising 6 - 10 children ....?
>>> well that's tough
>>
>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
>> irresponsible.
>
> What a norbett.
>
> Can you tell with absolute certainty the amount of money you will earn
> in the next 12 months? What about the next 10 years.
No, of course not.
But I can tell you that I only had children when I knew for sure I could
support them.
> Can you tell with absolute certainty that the relationship you are in
> will survive the next 12 months? What about the next 10 years (and don't
> forget illness and/or sudden death)
Of course not - I hardly see the relevance though.
Does it make sense of a beneficiary to have children? By definition they
cannot afford to live off their own means anyway. So incurring another
voluntary expense is irresponsible, it's unfair to the subsequent children
and it's unfair on the mugs forced to pay for their lifestyle choices.
--
A.
hellicopter
There are many who agree with him. Gangs don't like paying taxes
either. Police quite are unnecessary. Why should the poor be
paying to keep the rich safe. It just stealing from poor people.
hellicopter
I don't have kids why should I pay for private education funding
'help' for the rich. I don't mind these benefit families, I do
mind subsidizing English's brats. Get National off my back!
whoisthis
<10e314c9-1d68-418b...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Brian 6424 <brai...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, if you can no longer afford to support them they will be auctioned
off to couples who can not have children.... those that fail to be sold
will be humanely put down I guess.
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> Brian 6424 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 7:57 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> >> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
> >> irresponsible.
> >
> > What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>
> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
sell them off i guess.
>
> > Perhaps your
> > authoritarian National party
>
> ?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party supporter?
>
> > will intervene and dictate to
> > beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
> What's more responsible? Having children you cannot afford to have and then
> expecting other people to pay for them, or deciding not to have them in the
> first place?
>
> Your advocating a system that punishes one person because another decides to
> have kids they cannot afford. That's corrupt - people should be accountable
> for their actions and should not expect other to be forced to pay for them.
Given you admitted you could NOT guarantee your or your partners income
for 10 years (or even life expectancy) one presumes you were not
irresponsible and thus are childless....
hellicopter
Your view that your wants and needs should be provided for
but the wants and needs of 'others' should not be. That
you view should be listened too, that tells others to be
more responsible yet you won't be yourself. Since you
will not accept others have access rights to the same
resources you do, you won't accept that those resources
are already shared out with regards to cost benefits.
Its not a problem that you are heartless and stupid,
or that you have a right to free speech, the problem
is that your told what to believe and think its funny
to repeat it for the cheap ego trip you get. You are
an shallow person, and please don't tell me I'm
attacking you unfairly, I cite exactly how you fail
to live up to the standards you impell the poorest and
most powerless to live up to.
hellicopter
LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT AS SOCIAL EXCLUSION
http://www.unesco.org/most/p86doc3.htm
Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why?
http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/full/63/2/273
We hear it all the time, some genius sees under performing
citizens and thinks why spend money on them. Then immediate
declares the profit as a tax cut to fuel growth. The idea
being that government is only for those who earn a living,
this presupposes that the beneficiaries aren't paying tax,
aren't artists making substantially more when they die...
Its the culture of exclusion and exclusivity, the backward
vanity of the rich that views the poor as waste product.
Even if the waste product cost more to dispose of, than
actively getting off the backs of the welfare bum and
letting them sink or swim. i.e. active management (the
left), or compulsive management (the right), the civil
libertarian view is to release the citizens from the
clutches of bureaucracy with a negative tax credit,
the national socialist far right is to create an
large interment camp whose walls are made by lack of
choices, lack of access and lack of rights.
Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology
http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2009/Social-Isolation-and-New-Technology.aspx
And the best article about prisons...
Hellhole
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande
The point I'm trying to make, is the National Party have
no idea, and their ideology is in lockstep with the nasty
kinds of people who don't care about low taxes as long
as punishment is metered out to the poorest, weakest.
I thought NZ was better than that, kicking the little guy.
But then I found that the welfare system smothers just as
badly with kindness. And two sides, increased kicking
or increase suffocation, both churn the poor, powerless
and weak into waste product. Then you wonder why citizens
run for the gates at Auckland airport! They want a life
and want a larger country where comparable welfare laws
are more easily mitigated from the harm they do.
National aren't idiots, they are that nasty.
WorkHard
> Lots of moaning about the 2 women who were drawing the DPB, all
> sorts
> of name calling, right wingers foaming at the mouth in rage,
> the
> gnashing of teeth, anger at theft of taxes etc.
Bullshit. Emotive bloody claptrap as usual from you.
> But where are all the bludgers?
You are #1 on the list.
WorkHard
> But tarring all beneficiaries with the same brush is just
> stupid when
> most of them are doing the best they can under the
> circumstances
> and raising 6 - 10 children ....?
> well that's tough
What are they doing having 6-10 children they can't afford? You
call that doing a 'good' job?
I call it irresponsible, and that's being kind.
WorkHard
No need for any of that.
But how about YOU stop dictating to people and telling them they
must pay for the children other people CHOOSE to have - when
clearly they can't afford them!
Fuckwits like you encourage people to be irresponsilbe.
SupergoofNZ
> After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt
> released details of people receiving more than $1000 from social
> welfare. Damned 'bludgers.'
hmmm I know a 19 year-old couple, living with the boy's parents. He was
laid off a few months back through no fault of his own, but has been
looking for a job since then. Because his partner was working he didn't
qualify for the dole.
Girlfriend was doing extremely well in her job, progressing at a fast
rate and her future looked very rosy. But she recently decided that the
boyfriend's unemployed lifestyle was more appealing, and chucked in her
job (much to the disgust of her employer).
So now they both qualify for the dole. Until that comes through
presumably she'll be bludging off the boyfriend's parents.
The way she left her job is the sort of thing that is quite likely to
follow her and make it difficult to get another job, when and if she
chooses to.
There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the taxpayer
picking up the tab for this girl to sit on her arse because she chooses
not to work. Is there a longer stand-down period for people who chuck in
their jobs for no good reason?
We thought she was a bright, motivated girl ... turns out she's just
another dumb bint after all.
Rachel
SupergoofNZ
> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> Brian 6424 wrote:
>>> On Dec 23, 7:57� am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
>>>> irresponsible.
>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>
> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
> sell them off i guess.
I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more kids at the
best of times.
Rachel
SupergoofNZ
"I've made up my mind. It's scientific experiments for the lot of you!"
:o)
Rachel
JohnO
wrote:
> whoisthis wrote:
> > In article
> > <10e314c9-1d68-418b-a6f2-7b06e21ca...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Brian 6424 <brain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 23, 7:57 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> >>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
> >>> irresponsible.
> >> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister? Perhaps your
> >> authoritarian National party will intervene and dictate to
> >> beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
> > No, if you can no longer afford to support them they will be auctioned
> > off to couples who can not have children.... those that fail to be sold
> > will be humanely put down I guess.
>
> "I've made up my mind. It's scientific experiments for the lot of you!"
>
> :o)
>
> Rachel
Where's the machine that goes 'ping'?
JohnO
wrote:
> George wrote:
> > After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt
> > released details of people receiving more than $1000 from social
> > welfare. Damned 'bludgers.'
>
> hmmm I know a 19 year-old couple, living with the boy's parents. He was
> laid off a few months back through no fault of his own, but has been
> looking for a job since then. Because his partner was working he didn't
> qualify for the dole.
>
> Girlfriend was doing extremely well in her job, progressing at a fast
> rate and her future looked very rosy. But she recently decided that the
> boyfriend's unemployed lifestyle was more appealing, and chucked in her
> job (much to the disgust of her employer).
>
> So now they both qualify for the dole. Until that comes through
> presumably she'll be bludging off the boyfriend's parents.
>
> The way she left her job is the sort of thing that is quite likely to
> follow her and make it difficult to get another job, when and if she
> chooses to.
>
> There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the taxpayer
> picking up the tab for this girl to sit on her arse because she chooses
> not to work. Is there a longer stand-down period for people who chuck in
> their jobs for no good reason?
>
> We thought she was a bright, motivated girl ... turns out she's just
> another dumb bint after all.
>
> Rachel
Maybe she is actually very clever and is just milking the system to
her best advantage?
Sailor Sam
You've just said you cannot be sure, not in any way, shape or form.
>
>> Can you tell with absolute certainty that the relationship you are in
>> will survive the next 12 months? What about the next 10 years (and don't
>> forget illness and/or sudden death)
>
> Of course not - I hardly see the relevance though.
At any point in time, heaven forbid, anything could happen to force you,
or your partner, into a position where you require a benefit.
>
> Does it make sense of a beneficiary to have children? By definition they
> cannot afford to live off their own means anyway. So incurring another
> voluntary expense is irresponsible, it's unfair to the subsequent children
> and it's unfair on the mugs forced to pay for their lifestyle choices.
Could you show me where any of the beneficiaries listed had children
once they were on the benefit.
Allistar
> In article <_dOdnU43E4rIqKzW...@giganews.com>,
> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian 6424 wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 23, 7:57 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> >> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's
>> >> personally irresponsible.
>> >
>> > What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>>
>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>
> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
> sell them off i guess.
Of course not, but if you *know* you're financially struggling, having more
children isn't wise.
>> > Perhaps your
>> > authoritarian National party
>>
>> ?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party supporter?
>>
>> > will intervene and dictate to
>> > beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>>
>> What's more responsible? Having children you cannot afford to have and
>> then expecting other people to pay for them, or deciding not to have them
>> in the first place?
>>
>> Your advocating a system that punishes one person because another decides
>> to have kids they cannot afford. That's corrupt - people should be
>> accountable for their actions and should not expect other to be forced to
>> pay for them.
>
> Given you admitted you could NOT guarantee your or your partners income
> for 10 years (or even life expectancy) one presumes you were not
> irresponsible and thus are childless....
I was (and still am) very confident in our ability to provide for our
family. And yes, we made sure we were financially stable enough before we
had kids.
Now back to the topic: people who cannot financially support themselves
having children. THAT is irresponsible.
--
A.
Allistar
> whoisthis wrote:
>> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>> Brian 6424 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 23, 7:57Â am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's
>>>>> personally irresponsible.
>>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>>
>> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
>> sell them off i guess.
>
>
> I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more kids at the
> best of times.
Yet some people have children they cannot support. Why? Because the state is
willing to given them money it forcibly takes from someone else.
--
A.
Allistar
>
> "JohnO" <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c3c0a3ac-642c-4b07...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 22, 10:19 pm, "George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt released
>> details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
>> 'bludgers.'http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid...
>>
>> rob
>> $1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including
>> some
>> not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
>> not meeting his job search obligations.
>>
>> $1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
>> children, most from other parents.
>>
>> $1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight
>> children, including those of his son, who left the children and went to
>> Australia. Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children
>> has returned to its mother.
>>
>> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA
>> at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>
>>According to the article 13 of the top 20 are in this situation. So 7
>>are not which still leaves a pretty bad bludger scenario.
>>
>>Check out this fucker:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10617045
>>
>>This one's freeloading state house:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616998
>>
>>However this one takes the gold medal for outstanding bludging::
>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3184336/Couple-on-benefits-since-1984
>>
>>So there are plenty of cases where benefits are appropriate - we all
>>knew that. But the bludgers are taking money away from those people.
>
> But where are all the multitudes of bludgers people were moaning about ?
>
> Lots of moaning about the 2 women who were drawing the DPB, all sorts of
> name calling, right wingers foaming at the mouth in rage, the gnashing of
> teeth, anger at theft of taxes etc.
>
> But where are all the bludgers?
Everyone claiming some form of benefit. Money they did not earn.
--
A.
whoisthis
SupergoofNZ <thunderbi...@penelope.net> wrote:
Unfortunately multiple births can bugger up anyones maths....
Sailor Sam
Do you have any form of income insurance?
John Cawston
It was never an issue in the past. My wife and my parents were
all part of families with an average 8 kids, average jobs and
circumstances. And until WFF came in 5 years ago it was common
for people to have 4 kids and only one average job.. they managed.
For all they get disparaged the vast majority of Maori and PI big
families raised their kids with just one average income and maybe
a part timer for Mum with no WFF, and did a fine job of it.
Their houses mightn't be grand, the car old and the TV is a bit
bung but they managed one way or the other and the kids tell you
how much fun they had.
JC
>
>
>
> Rachel
hellicopter
Allistar, if he did read the article, didn't understand it.
Allistar is a dipstick short of the last drop of oil they
pull from Mother Earths dead cold body.
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
"very confident" <> Guarantee.
Your "very confident" could have been easily killed off in a number of
ways. You still CHOSE to have kids with no guarantee ( and I bet you
used state hospitals, subsidised doctors, schools etc too !).
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
80% of American bankruptcies were due to medical bills, 68% of these
people had "insurance", they too thought they were OK.....
hellicopter
Worse, you maybe talking to a fascist who doesn't understand
that a contract has to be entered into to advantage both parties
and the fact said Nazi idiot can't imagine a person throwing in
a 'assumed' good job is not the fully functioning of a free
market. What an idiot, does he even understand contractors?
They routine down tools when they want. Its hardly rocket
science people, the morons fascists just want to make everything
look like the poor are suckers, and if you listen to them you
will be one too. The simple fact is a person has the right
to withdraw their labour when they wish, just as an employer
has the right to lay them off when they are surplus to requirements.
Raise wages, be more flexible, run full employment policy and
you'll find the boyfriend will get work and the his girlfriend
will too and thank your lucky stars if you get to employ these
individuals because you'll actually have to put in the effort
into keeping them interested, not yout brown noser fascist
prick who wants free markets just to get stupid throwaway
employees. Life is too short to waste on an arrogant employer.
hellicopter
A lie. Since you know people pay into the benefit system
when they are in work, paying taxes in the shops, paying
taxes on interest, paying taxes driving their car,
paying taxes by being law abiding citizen and not going on
mass strike and cause societal breakdown.
The simple fact is people can't afford the lifestyle
they were told was right, the consumer till they drop,
and now they are finding that working fewer hours
actually is good for them and don't want to go back to
24-7 and only do so because they are heavily indebted.
There is a seachange happening right under your nose,
its cool to be thrifty again, employers are going to
find the few good workers who stuck to their guns
and didn't fly overseas are going to a mite more
militant now they see the other side of the fence.
Brian Dooley
>On Dec 23, 7:57�am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
>> irresponsible.
>
>What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister? Perhaps your
>authoritarian National party will intervene and dictate to
>beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
Like the Chinese communists?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:53:05 +1300, hellicopter
<stone...@kol.co.nz> wrote:
snip---
>As for Bennetts plans to implement the National
>policy put on hold by the recession, good luck with
>that, many commentators think the pain is ahead of us.
What's a commentator?
And why?
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:30:53 +1300, Rich...@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:54:05 -0800 (PST), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Dec 22, 10:19�pm, "George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>> After all the moaning and bleating from the right wing, the govt released
>>> details of people receiving more than $1000 from social welfare. Damned
>>> 'bludgers.'http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid...
>>>
>>> rob
>>> $1702 a week - Northland man, married, caring for 10 children including some
>>> not his own. Case notes say he did not attend a scheduled meeting and was
>>> not meeting his job search obligations.
>>>
>>> $1700 - a married Northland person, getting $1700 a week to care for 10
>>> children, most from other parents.
>>>
>>> $1574 - married grandfather on invalids benefit caring for eight children,
>>> including those of his son, who left the children and went to Australia.
>>> Grandfather has not heard from him since. One of the children has returned
>>> to its mother.
>>>
>>> $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing BA at
>>> university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>>
>>According to the article 13 of the top 20 are in this situation. So 7
>>are not which still leaves a pretty bad bludger scenario.
>
>You mean after adding 10,000 to total beneficiary numbers (just why
>are so many more on sickness benefits? - are National trying to hide
>unemployment?), they've found 7 that they find concerning? Wow, they
>certainly had their priorities right, didn't they JohnO!
>>
>>Check out this fucker:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10617045
>
>No evidence of sexual activity there.
>
>>This one's freeloading state house:
>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616998
>That appears to be the same story. Two identical stories don't make
>two 'bludgers' JohnO. Its probably similar to National announcing any
>expenditure three times so it appears they are spending more . . .)
>Do you think this Alan Wilkins has been getting lessons in housing
>allowances from Bill English?
>
>>
>>However this one takes the gold medal for outstanding bludging::
>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3184336/Couple-on-benefits-since-1984
>
>Well a newspaper story is as good as a trial, isn't it? Just what law
>has been broken, JohnO? What are National planning to do about this
>case?
>
>>So there are plenty of cases where benefits are appropriate - we all
>>knew that. But the bludgers are taking money away from those people.
>
>Oh really? And those that gave away billions in tax cuts for
>themselves and others on teh top tax rate are not bigger bludgers?
Careful - he's one of them.
victor
In them days we was glad to have the price of a cup o' tea
Allistar
I have life insurance, health insurance, mortgage protection insurance and
income protection insurance. Yes, I am confident.
--
A.
Sailor Sam
So, people should be forced to have these insurances before they have
children, or be damned by people like Allistar as bludgers...
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
Unless the insurance company
a) Goes broke
b) Sells its self to another company and existing medical conditions are
no longer covered
c) You suffer "an act of god"
d) The insurance company finds something in your records you did not
fully disclose
e) your condition goes beyond what the company has to pay
f) The insurance company changes its terms and conditions (you are free
to find an alternative, existing conditions no longer covered)
g) The insurance company puts up its fees to being unaffordable
I am sure your insurance will cover you for the rest of your life if you
have a stroke.....get hit by a meteorite...and that these companies are
immune from economic conditions
retro
> retro wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:45 pm, Carnations <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:19:23 +1300, George wrote:
> >> > at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>
> >> reasonable wage.
>
> >> --
> >> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
>
> > Sounds that way to me as well.
>
> > Fair enough that notorious family who were highlighted on the news
> > last night need to be sorted out somehow, send the army in perhaps.
>
> > But tarring all beneficiaries with the same brush is just stupid when
> > most of them are doing the best they can under the circumstances
> > and raising 6 - 10 children ....?
> > well that's tough
>
> irresponsible.
> A.-
yes that is right, it is irresponsible and really bad decision making,
or lack of decision making, but the children are not to blame for that
and their lives need to have some protective factors which can set
them on productive pathways and help to break the negative cycles
beeyoudeeful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFxxQnhT5XQ
Brian Dooley
How did they manage to earn enough in the past, then?
Rich...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>"George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:hgq836$cmc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>|
>| >
>||
>| But where are all the bludgers?
>|
>| rob
>|
>
>The bludgers are all those getting Working For Families benefits.
>They are just working the system.
>
>But that's the Labour Party's fault.
National ahve been in government for more than a year now. They
certainly promised to do away with Working for Families when the
legislation was passed and during the election, but when it came time
for their own budget (at lest 5 months after the election) they
decided that Labour had it right after all and kept Working for
Families. Do you think that is the National Party's fault?
>They want the wholecountry on the welfare tit. Tax everyone harshly and
>then pork-barrel the electorate for personal electoral ( and monetary)
>profit.
Labour are in no position to do anything about tax - National, when
given the opportunity, reduced taxes significantly for those on the
top tax rate - but INCREASED taxes for most people. I agree that
National MPS have increased taxes for most people in order to benefit
themselves personally and their rich friends on large taxable incomes.
WorkHard
>> I have life insurance, health insurance, mortgage protection
>> insurance and income protection insurance. Yes, I am
>> confident.
>
> So, people should be forced to have these insurances before
> they have
> children, or be damned by people like Allistar as bludgers...
Forced? You complaining about force? What a two-faced hypocrite
you are, SS.
The whole idea is to NOT force anyone to do anything. Especially
not force people to pay for other people's responsibilities.
State handouts are indeed for bludgers.
What's wrong with those people approaching their family,
meighbours and friends for help? Why should people be 'forced' to
give them money?
WorkHard
Mumbo jumbo bullshit.
Kids KNOW what's right and wrong. But if their parents won't pay
their way then the children will probably end up the same.
Rich...@hotmail.com
>Brian 6424 wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 7:57�am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's personally
>>> irresponsible.
>>
>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>
>That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>
>> Perhaps your
>> authoritarian National party
>
>?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party supporter?
>
>> will intervene and dictate to
>> beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
>What's more responsible? Having children you cannot afford to have and then
>expecting other people to pay for them, or deciding not to have them in the
>first place?
>
>Your advocating a system that punishes one person because another decides to
>have kids they cannot afford. That's corrupt - people should be accountable
>for their actions and should not expect other to be forced to pay for them.
So people should be all sorts of things. The reality is that sometimes
they are not. The reality is that sometimes the unexpected happens -
people die, marriages fail, jobs are lost.
If a grandfather is the only person left to look after a group of
children, would you prefer that he do that at a relatively low cost of
assistance to the state, or that they be put into care by the state at
higher expense?
Yes people 'should' do a lot of things - but what do you believe a
governmetn should do when things don't work out as expected?
whoisthis
Brian Dooley <bri...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
No internet, play station, iPod, computer and all the other "must have"
items.
whoisthis
Sailor Sam <hih...@merry.oh> wrote:
You can not insure children like that, nor will they be covered for any
birth defects, these defects can cost the families a fortune.
JohnO
> In article <rs33j59p68no2ssq28tcoq0r4m5fbiu...@4ax.com>,
> Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:08 +1300, SupergoofNZ
> > <thunderbirds.ar...@penelope.net> wrote:
>
> > >whoisthis wrote:
> > >> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> > >>> Brian 6424 wrote:
> > >>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's
> > >>>>> personally
> > >>>>> irresponsible.
> > >>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
> > >>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>
> > >> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
> > >> sell them off i guess.
>
> > >I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more kids at the
> > >best of times.
>
> > How did they manage to earn enough in the past, then?
>
> No internet, play station, iPod, computer and all the other "must have"
> items.
no Plasma TV, no Sky TV, no new car, no fancy brand over priced name
clothes.
In short, no culture of entitlement to anything one wants, funded by a
one or both of benefits and/or easy finance.
JohnO
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:59:11 +1300, "greybeard" <nob...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:hgq836$cmc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >|
> >| >
> >||
> >| But where are all the bludgers?
> >|
> >| rob
> >|
>
> >The bludgers are all those getting Working For Families benefits.
> >They are just working the system.
>
> >But that's the Labour Party's fault.
>
> National ahve been in government for more than a year now. They
> certainly promised to do away with Working for Families when the
> legislation was passed and during the election,
Wrong as usual Richbot. Regrettably the Nats announced in July 08,
ahead of the election, that they would retain WFF.
John Cawston
> On Dec 23, 4:38 pm, Rich80...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:59:11 +1300, "greybeard" <nob...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "George" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:hgq836$cmc$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> |
>>> | >
>>> ||
>>> | But where are all the bludgers?
>>> |
>>> | rob
>>> |
>>> The bludgers are all those getting Working For Families benefits.
>>> They are just working the system.
>>> But that's the Labour Party's fault.
>> National ahve been in government for more than a year now. They
>> certainly promised to do away with Working for Families when the
>> legislation was passed and during the election,
>
> Wrong as usual Richbot. Regrettably the Nats announced in July 08,
> ahead of the election, that they would retain WFF.
But they were buggered.. as English said its so intertwined with
the economy it couldn't immediately be taken out because of
unintended consequences.
Its like Bernard Hickey's slightly silly article today about
weakening our desire for property with taxes.. thats pointless
until we get in place alternative investments that are properly
regulated and which the average investor has confidence that his
risk won't be compounded by incompetent or criminal directors,
financial advisors and the like.
JC
WorkHard
> On Dec 23, 6:22 pm, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
>> In article <rs33j59p68no2ssq28tcoq0r4m5fbiu...@4ax.com>,
>> Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:08 +1300, SupergoofNZ
>>> <thunderbirds.ar...@penelope.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> whoisthis wrote:
>>>>> Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Brian 6424 wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them?
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> personally
>>>>>>>> irresponsible.
>>>>>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>>>>>> That people only have children if they can afford to have
>>>>>> them.
>>
>>>>> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only
>>>>> solution
>>>>> is to sell them off i guess.
>>
>>>> I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more
>>>> kids
>>>> at the best of times.
>>
>>> How did they manage to earn enough in the past, then?
>>
>> No internet, play station, iPod, computer and all the other
>> "must
>> have" items.
>
> no Plasma TV, no Sky TV, no new car, no fancy brand over priced
> name
> clothes.
>
> In short, no culture of entitlement to anything one wants,
> funded by a
> one or both of benefits and/or easy finance.
A 'make do' attitude. There was nothing wrong with sitting on
apple boxes. Nor homes without carpets.
whoisthis
<082b5aeb-65e4-4ed7...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
JohnO <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 6:22�pm, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
> > In article <rs33j59p68no2ssq28tcoq0r4m5fbiu...@4ax.com>,
> > �Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:08 +1300, SupergoofNZ
> > > <thunderbirds.ar...@penelope.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >whoisthis wrote:
> > > >> �Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Brian 6424 wrote:
> > > >>>> On Dec 23, 7:57� am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's
> > > >>>>> personally
> > > >>>>> irresponsible.
> > > >>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
> > > >>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
> >
> > > >> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
> > > >> sell them off i guess.
> >
> > > >I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more kids at the
> > > >best of times.
> >
> > > How did they manage to earn enough in the past, then?
> >
> > No internet, play station, iPod, computer and all the other "must have"
> > items.
>
> no Plasma TV, no Sky TV, no new car, no fancy brand over priced name
> clothes.
>
> In short, no culture of entitlement to anything one wants, funded by a
> one or both of benefits and/or easy finance.
yeah, but then again, bring back full employment too, what was it in the
early seventies... a few hundred ?
Oh yeah, bring back the 3% fixed for life home loans too.
Brian Dooley
>On Dec 23, 6:22�pm, whoisthis <w...@am.i.spammer> wrote:
>> In article <rs33j59p68no2ssq28tcoq0r4m5fbiu...@4ax.com>,
>> �Brian Dooley <bria...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:55:08 +1300, SupergoofNZ
>> > <thunderbirds.ar...@penelope.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >whoisthis wrote:
>> > >> �Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> > >>> Brian 6424 wrote:
>> > >>>> On Dec 23, 7:57� am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>> > >>>>> Why have 6 children if you cannot afford to raise them? That's
>> > >>>>> personally
>> > >>>>> irresponsible.
>> > >>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>> > >>> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
>>
>> > >> And if they suddenly end up in that situation the only solution is to
>> > >> sell them off i guess.
>>
>> > >I don't imagine many people earn enough to support 6 or more kids at the
>> > >best of times.
>>
>> > How did they manage to earn enough in the past, then?
>>
>> No internet, play station, iPod, computer and all the other "must have"
>> items.
>
>no Plasma TV, no Sky TV, no new car, no fancy brand over priced name
>clothes.
>
>In short, no culture of entitlement to anything one wants, funded by a
>one or both of benefits and/or easy finance.
But there wasn't much that they *could* want in comparison to
today. However they managed to make do with what was available eg
my Irish grandfather reckoned that he had drunk brandy by the
barrelful, not the bucketful (he was at pains to make clear). And
my mother's brother Albert gave directions by means of the pubs
which sold Chester's ale.
Geopelia
"Allistar" <b...@c.com> wrote in message
news:zbednTEbaI_juazW...@giganews.com...
> retro wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 10:45 pm, Carnations <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:19:23 +1300, George wrote:
>>> > $1461 - Wellington single mother with six children on DPB. Finishing
>>> > BA
>>> > at university and wanted to work in IT when course finished last month
>>>
>>> Sounds like a woman doing her utmost to get off the dpb and into a
>>> reasonable wage.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
>>
>> Sounds that way to me as well.
>>
>> Fair enough that notorious family who were highlighted on the news
>> last night need to be sorted out somehow, send the army in perhaps.
>>
>> But tarring all beneficiaries with the same brush is just stupid when
>> most of them are doing the best they can under the circumstances
>> and raising 6 - 10 children ....?
>> well that's tough
>
> irresponsible.
You don't know the circumstances. She may have been in a marriage or stable
relationship that broke up.
Geopelia
"Brian 6424" <brai...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10e314c9-1d68-418b...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> irresponsible.
What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister? Perhaps your
authoritarian National party will intervene and dictate to
beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
----------------------------
Here's one solution!
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
"A Modest Proposal"
Swift.
Allistar
I'm referring to the people who are collecting some form of benefit
(including WFF) who decide to have more kids.
--
A.
religionofpeas
beneficiaries are depending on you.
Allistar
It's a game of checks and balances, for sure. But to know for sure that you
cannot afford them, and to make a decision to have them? That is
irresponsible.
--
A.
Sailor Sam
> But to know for sure that you
> cannot afford them, and to make a decision to have them? That is
> irresponsible.
Which is very very different from you were saying yesterday.
Sailor Sam
Goalposts moving much...
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
You obviously took the risk. Could YOU have been able to pay for 70
years of looking after a severely handicapped child....?
I am also presuming that you were 100% sure that none of your kids would
ever be born with an emotional illness and deliberately set your home on
fire (not insured !)
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
which by your attitude includes all of them.
Geopelia
That does seem stupid if it is a deliberate decision, but accidents happen,
and some people still feel abortion is wrong.
Perhaps free contraception for those on a benefit, and advice that they are
able to understand would be a good idea.
If women are to be forced to get work when a child is six surely the answer
is to have another child before that?
So some mothers may decide, to ensure they are able to stay home. (Jobs in
school hours are not easy to find, anyway.)
Has the government considered this possibility? I bet the women concerned
have!
Allistar
?? Only those that have children when they are already collecting a benefit.
By definition they cannot afford to provide for themselves, so bringing
another life into this world makes no sense. Who will pay for them?
--
A.
Allistar
Yes.
> I am also presuming that you were 100% sure that none of your kids would
> ever be born with an emotional illness and deliberately set your home on
> fire (not insured !)
I am talking about people who *know for sure* that they cannot afford more
children, yet still decide to have them.
--
A.
Allistar
Some people think that forced wealth redistribution is wrong too.
Unfortunately we have no choice in that - we live in a system where one man
can vote away the freedoms of another.
> Perhaps free contraception for those on a benefit, and advice that they
> are able to understand would be a good idea.
Free? Nothing is free. Who would pay for it?
> If women are to be forced to get work when a child is six surely the
> answer is to have another child before that?
Who forces women to work when a child is six? I know many women with over 6
year old children who do not work - no-one is foring them to do any such
thing.
> So some mothers may decide, to ensure they are able to stay home. (Jobs in
> school hours are not easy to find, anyway.)
So they have more children so they can be given more money they did not
earn? That's immoral.
> Has the government considered this possibility? I bet the women concerned
> have!
--
A.
Sailor Sam
It's a joke Geo, yesterday he was claiming everyone who could not
guarantee stable income for the life of their children were in the
wrong, today he's claiming he only means those already on the benefit,
none of which he has shown are in the group pointed out in the original
post.
It all seems based on his ignorance, and prejudices, which is how these
sort of people act.
> Perhaps free contraception for those on a benefit,
IIRC The family planning group do this, free condoms at any rate (which,
like the pill, and a few other contraceptive techniques, is not 100%
effective)
> and advice that they are
> able to understand would be a good idea.
>
Aint that the truth.
> If women are to be forced to get work when a child is six surely the answer
> is to have another child before that?
> So some mothers may decide, to ensure they are able to stay home. (Jobs in
> school hours are not easy to find, anyway.)
>
> Has the government considered this possibility? I bet the women concerned
> have!
>
>
>
I was talking to a sole mum a couple of days ago, she works fulltime in
a supermarket. Her child is 14, and in all manner of trouble, smoking,
drinking, not going to school, fighting, teen troubles to be sure, the
mum can't do anything, because she is stuck at work when her child is
into all the trouble.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Perhaps, if only she had had
a crystal ball when she fell pregnant those years ago, and foresaw her
(then) husbands demise, all this could have been avoided, perhaps
Allistar can point her in the direction of these crystal balls.
hellicopter
Its gotten so bad that intellectuals and experts are wrong, and
the 'entitled' right off the street ratbag voter has
more 'expertise'. Cheap easy finance that gave morons every product
under the sun, who spent up on credit, who got dumb jobs created
by hordes of dumb people buying dumb stuff, has decimated any
brain activity in the minds of the majority. Do they concern
themselves they might be wrong? No. Do they stand steadfast
to the hope that there will be a rebound if only dumb nuts
will open their credit cards again. Nowt for Nowt. If you
crush the intellectuals with Fox propaganda, if you allow
every idiot to make stupid assertions, it will inevitably
lead to a credit crunch, piles of unless products, mismatched
unbalanced economics that will take decades to set right.
Its just hopeless that, for example, a man with back pain
told by his doctor to try to get as much exercise as he
could, ended up with 5 years of hell through the courts
all because some idiot in the ACC decided not to talk
in confidence to first a medicial professional and then
to his doctor to CLEAR UP ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
But you see everyone is an expert now and to clear their
up mistakes takes millions of dollars!
It is not right to have some religious right idiot
telling everyone the police should have no means
to check on the situation of children and the old
who maybe being abused! The referendum lobby is
scary.
It is not right to have those who criticize climate
science, the worst their examples, the more air time
they get! That's not right. Find the best anti-human
climate change windbag, who thinks humans *could*
march all in the same direction and cause the atmosphere
to hit it natural temperature (Venus like).
hellicopter
It would be wrong to compell others not to have children, yet
the nazi gets around this by demanding the parents not have children!
Eugenics becomes pure propaganda.
Note the lie also, that Allistar needs to ignore, that
economics times have been very good and people will have
THOUGHT they would be able to pay for extra children.
So in quality and quantity Allistar is a waste of time
debating with, he has fixed views and can never be wrong.
Classically called an ignoramus.
whoisthis
Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
No, you were saying that unless they were absolutely sure they can
afford it for 100% of the childs needs they should not be allowed to
have children.
Brian Dooley
That only counts in Ireland and right now they're thinking about
it.
Brian Dooley
Once a bigot always a bigot.
Geopelia
The taxpayer, through the government. But it would be cheaper than paying
the benefit for child after child.
>
>> If women are to be forced to get work when a child is six surely the
>> answer is to have another child before that?
>
> Who forces women to work when a child is six? I know many women with over
> 6
> year old children who do not work - no-one is foring them to do any such
> thing.
I think it is a new law in the pipeline. I may be wrong about the actual
age, though.
>
>> So some mothers may decide, to ensure they are able to stay home. (Jobs
>> in
>> school hours are not easy to find, anyway.)
>
> So they have more children so they can be given more money they did not
> earn? That's immoral.
Perhaps, but it would ensure that they are home for the children. It's bad
enough that many married women now have to go out to work, putting the
children in day care. But at least they have partners.
It must be terrible for a mother on her own these days. But adoption, which
used to be the most common solution, seems to have fallen out of favour. Yet
now they would be allowed to have contact with the child as it grows, if
they want it.
Of course a young mother wants her "dear little baby", and feels she can
cope. But children grow. Can she cope with a two year old, a ten year old,
or a rebellious teenager?
Are we giving young pregnant women the advice they really need? It seems to
me that they are being encouraged to abort or keep the child on the DPB,
instead of giving them a free choice of all the possibilities.
WorkHard
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:33:57 +1300, hellicopter wrote:
>
>> So in quality and quantity Allistar is a waste of time
>> debating
>> with, he has fixed views and can never be wrong.
>
> record -
Rubbish. His views are consistent and based on principle, unlike
yours. He can be depended upon unlike you.
> essentially he wants everything set up so that he has maximum
> freedom
> to do what he likes
Quite right, too.
> with minimum responsibility or accountability -
That's a lie. He wants people to be responsible for their own
actions... NOT for anyone and everyone elses.
> and he doesn't care how that impacts on others
It doesn't impact on others, that's the whole point. He doesn't
dictate to you, or, violate your rights.
> so long as his freedom
> to do what he likes when he likes how he likes is not
> impacted -
> certainly not by any governmental or social mandate.
Absolutely! I agree.
Seriously, who wants dictating creeps like you telling you what
to do, ordering you about and stealing your time and money?
NO ONE has any right dictating to any other human being.
Brian 6424
> > What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
> That people only have children if they can afford to have them.
How many pregnancies are completely planned Allistar?
> ?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party supporter?
Your modus operandi certainly fits the bill. Bashing beneficiaries is
a passtime of both far right parties. Perhaps you are an Act supporter
then?
> > will intervene and dictate to
> > beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
> What's more responsible? Having children you cannot afford to have and then
> expecting other people to pay for them, or deciding not to have them in the
> first place?
>
> Your advocating a system that punishes one person because another decides to
> have kids they cannot afford. That's corrupt - people should be accountable
> for their actions and should not expect other to be forced to pay for them.
Just like ACC punishes those who have not had an accident by paying
out for those that do? Obviously you believe in a society where the
individual looks after only themselves, in-keeping with the far right
political manifesto.
Brian 6424
> > Of course not - I hardly see the relevance though.
> At any point in time, heaven forbid, anything could happen to force you,
> or your partner, into a position where you require a benefit.
Don't worry Sam, in Allistar's free-market utopian society, he will
look after himself and not unfairly burden those that do not require a
benefit by paying him money.
Brian 6424
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:57:44 -0800 (PST), Brian 6424
> >> irresponsible.
>
> >beneficiaries how many children they are permitted to have.
>
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
Yes, that is exactly the example I was thinking of. This sort of
behaviour occurs at either extreme of the political spectrum.
WorkHard
> On Dec 23, 9:09 am, Allistar <b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>>> What do you propose Allister as the solution Allister?
>> That people only have children if they can afford to have
>> them.
>
> How many pregnancies are completely planned Allistar?
>
>> ?? Are you under the impression that I'm a National party
>> supporter?
>
> Your modus operandi certainly fits the bill. Bashing
> beneficiaries is
> a passtime of both far right parties. Perhaps you are an Act
> supporter
> then?
Hey, shag. There is no bashing of beneficiaries.
It's the beneficiaries bashing others by taking their money that
they earned through hard graft.
Where do you get off thinking it's ok to steal your living off
others because you can't keep your dick in your pants and be
responsible for your own actions?
Where do you get off thinking it's ok to steal your living off
someone else because YOU made some mistakes or lost your job?
The only right you have is to ask, plead, beg or borrow from
others... that's all.
WorkHard
> On Dec 23, 1:18 pm, Sailor Sam <hiho...@merry.oh> wrote:
>
>>> Of course not - I hardly see the relevance though.
>> At any point in time, heaven forbid, anything could happen to
>> force
>> you, or your partner, into a position where you require a
>> benefit.
>
> Don't worry Sam, in Allistar's free-market utopian society,
No such thing, nor has he ever said there was.
Try hinesty for once in your miserable life.
> he will
> look after himself
Rightly so, too. Why do you think it's his responsibility to look
after you?
> and not unfairly burden those that do not require a
> benefit by paying him money.
That doesn't make any sense.
WorkHard
Oh bullshit. You are talking about cheats, theives, and such
like.
Having your rights respected, and respecting the same rights of
others, is nothing like what you are saying.
What you ARE saying, is that YOU have the right to help yourself
to anyone else's property, money and time for whatever reason you
deem. That they are subservient to you and your wishes, wants and
whims.
Why don't you cut out the middleman (the govt) and do your own
stealing directly? That would save a whole lot of wasted time and
money on parasites in govt and their bureaucracies.
That would mean win/lose instead of win/lose/lose/lose.
hellicopter
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:33:57 +1300, hellicopter wrote:
>
>> So in quality and quantity Allistar is a waste of time debating with, he
>> has fixed views and can never be wrong.
>
> His economic and social views are as predictable as a broken record -
> essentially he wants everything set up so that he has maximum freedom to
> do what he likes with minimum responsibility or accountability - and he
> doesn't care how that impacts on others so long as his freedom to do what
> he likes when he likes how he likes is not impacted - certainly not by any
> governmental or social mandate.
>
>
Yes, its not that he wants to maximize his freedom, or economic
wealth, this are admirable qualities. Its that he doesn't get the
basics, that for a fair society freedom must be for all, and
since their is no God, or absolute measure, he cannot dictate
the rule that he doesn't have to meet people half way. Nobody
gets it their way entirely, but he seems to think its a right,
and won't regard the freedoms of others. He pays his taxes
he says, he wants to pay less because he is a victim of government
using it to keep children educated and thus paying taxes!
Taxes that will lower his taxes, but he doesn't want that
someone to help him end up pay less tax! No, he wants more
crime as more uneducated people will inevitable go into jail.
And jail we know costs a lot of tax payer money. So here's
the creepy thing about Allistar, he wants to pay less tax
yet his irresponsible know it all want it all attitude will
lead to him paying MORE tax. Its would be a joy to crush
his sad absolute dictatorship of one but after the hundred
time of hearing it from every singleminded self pitching toss
pot it gets a mite boring, even stupid. He isn't that dumb,
so either he's paid or he has a massive delusional mental problem
with empathizing with others. You see its the government
that's the problem, they make it so easy for the richest
that the rich don't know how good they have it. Until its gone again!
hellicopter
> Carnations wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:33:57 +1300, hellicopter wrote:
>>
>>> So in quality and quantity Allistar is a waste of time
>>> debating
>>> with, he has fixed views and can never be wrong.
>>
>> His economic and social views are as predictable as a broken
>> record -
>
> Rubbish. His views are consistent and based on principle, unlike
> yours. He can be depended upon unlike you.
Boring is still boring. Complexity can be ignored if the
problems are too hard for you.
>
>> essentially he wants everything set up so that he has maximum
>> freedom
>> to do what he likes
>
> Quite right, too.
Who doesn't!
>
>> with minimum responsibility or accountability -
>
> That's a lie. He wants people to be responsible for their own
> actions... NOT for anyone and everyone elses.
No. He wants to dictate to others! He wants to tell them they
must obey his view of whats principles.
NO taxation with out representative! Applies to more
than just Allistar and you. It means you don't get to
dictate the economic principles.
>
>> and he doesn't care how that impacts on others
>
> It doesn't impact on others, that's the whole point. He doesn't
> dictate to you, or, violate your rights.
No, its worse. Allistar does understand that we pay for
children to get an education so we can pay less tax when
they enter the workforce, we pay people to get healthcare
so we don't catch their diseases, we pay people to get
adequate housing so we don't have to pay more when they
riot for better housing. We pay people the dole so that
they have food and don't run up the red workers flag.
We benefit by a shared economy, what don't you understand
about sharing. Your fascist dictating that your way or the
highway would be just insulting, but its frigging stupid
since you end up paying more taxes as a result! You
end up paying more in the shops because most people
won't be drawing down the price when they also buy the
goods and services, so the business will have to raise
its prices to make its margins. You are a complete idiot!
You will spike your own face to save it!
>
>> so long as his freedom
>> to do what he likes when he likes how he likes is not
>> impacted -
>> certainly not by any governmental or social mandate.
>
> Absolutely! I agree.
>
> Seriously, who wants dictating creeps like you telling you what
> to do, ordering you about and stealing your time and money?
But his philosophy dictates nobody else has an opinion,
are you completely blind!
> NO ONE has any right dictating to any other human being.
Yes, exactly, we do not have to accept anything Allistar or you say.
Especially when we know it raises your taxes! We have to
stop you self-harming, even if you don't like it. Because
the consequences to us letting you have your way is us shouldering
more taxes! And I'm be damned if you get me to pay even more!