“Bennett & English begin promoting next round of welfare changes – this time, it’s drug testing of beneficiaries. No thought appears to be given to lack of adequate A & D services, consequences to personal & family health & well being if you have no income, & downstream medical, police, court, prison & other costs. All aimed at appealing to beneficiary bashing vote, again, sadly.”
If you choose to take drugs, then get done when they stay in your system, any resulting consequences are of your own doing – so deal with them like a mature adult. It’s called taking personal responsibility. How hard is this to understand?
My response? Sue Bradford is right, for once. Here’s a post from my old blog that explains why.
[Reprised from beNZylpiperazine, August 2007. Five years later, National has picked up where Labour left off and nothing much has changed.]
What is it with right-wingers and their fetish for trained circus seals?
Popular among right-wingers is the following proposed solution to the problem of welfare abuse: make welfare beneficiaries jump through hoops. Exactly which hoops it’s thought welfare beneficiaries should jump through depends on the right-winger making the proposal. What particularly irks me is the suggestion put forward here.
Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them??
Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking piss & smoking dope all day.
Surely, paying people to sit on their arses drinking piss and smoking dope all day is one of the better uses of government money. But I digress. There is an obvious problem with the proposal. If you make passing a urine test a condition of eligibility for the dole, this will have the unintended consequence of inducing people to apply for the sickness benefit as alcoholics or drug addicts, where failing a urine test is a condition of eligibility.
The truth is, there is only one solution to the problem of welfare abuse – remove the state entirely from the provision of welfare and devolve that responsibility to voluntary charities and private insurance companies – and only one political party advocating this solution – Libertarianz. Here are a couple of ideas which may (or may not) be part of the soon-to-be-announced Libertarianz transitional social welfare policy.
First, stop treating “alcoholism” and “drug addiction” as afflictions which qualify the afflicted for the sickness benefit. Drug addiction is a lifestyle choice, not a disease.
Second, put a six month time limit on the unemployment benefit. I don’t mean that beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole after they’ve been on it six months. I mean that all unemployment beneficiaries should cease to receive the dole six months after the policy is implemented. So, if the policy were to be implemented tomorrow, the unemployment benefit would be off the WINZ menu come February next year. Six months should be ample time to find a job. Perhaps some right-wingers might offer employment opportunities for professional trained circus seals.
Here we have the Big Lie!
Ie That Big Spending Government is the source of Prosperity.
Shearer thinks he can spend your money more wisely than you can!
He thinks if he was elected PM that would give him the right to sink you deeper in debt.
Yet This bullshit is music to the Ears of those whom suck off the state tit and are today faced with mass redundancy and being kicked off welfare.
These are the Parasites whom throw fire bombs at protests against austerity.
They violently reject Reality… the reality that they have sucked the productive sector to death… And Shearer sees Power in pandering to their Lunacy.
This evil bastard is playing the same fiddle as the new French President used to get elected
This Idea of Big spending ‘stimulus’ is a Failure which ends up creating more poverty and debt not jobs and growth.
This is the lesson we ought to have learned from Barack Obama.. who also won the American Presidency by promoting Stimulus instead of Austerity.
While he did included some Tax relief they were nullified because instead of being accompanied with austerity He … ” “Unfortunately, the trillion-dollar spending plan authored by congressional Democrats is chock full of government programs and projects, most of which won’t provide immediate relief to our ailing economy,” House Republican Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) said yesterday in his party’s response address.”
Thus It Failed.
” On this day in 2009, President Barack Obama signed the stimulus bill into law.
Three years and $825 billion later, the results are clear. Instead of producing an economic recovery, the stimulus produced only broken promises and massive debt. The stimulus failed—and by the president’s own standards at that.”
David Shearer is counting on the wooly headed sheeple of New Zealand not to aprehend what a monumental failure Barack Obama Big spending interventions have proven to be.
The reality is We must now endure a period of pain to pay for all the overspending of decades of Shearer type socialism… The longer Austerity is postponed… the longer and greater will be the recovery.
Libertarians around the Globe have known this time of reckoning was coming. They have tireless worked to prevent it, yet to no avail. The sheeple thought they were getting a free ride… a free lunch…
Wrong Bet Morons!
Its time to pay the Piper!
If your children suffer today it is because you sold them out!
We must slay the Beast!
Kill That King Kong Socialist Gorilla on our Backs… not keep feeding the Freak!
We need to downsize Government.
We need to remove heavy Taxation.
We need to removed burdensome Regulations and compliance cost.
Campbell Live asked Facebookers an interesting question regarding the spheres of Government opperation…
“Should the Ministry of Health cut funding to other medical areas in order to subsidise the cost of dental care? or is it a matter of personal responsibility?”
There were plenty of responces…
One Lady (Lets call her Lambo) wrote…
“Your teeth and mouth are just as important as other parts of your body. Govt funding would be great, especially for those that can’t afford it!”
Someone please tear my arm off and beat me to death with it! You will be doing me a favour!
How flocking great would it be for the Gabberment to take away another burden of self responsibility!
No I did not say any of those things.
My bridled reply was…
“Definitely Self-responsibility! People cant afford it *Lambo* because they are crushed under the weight of socialist taxes, neither do they have their values and priorities in correct Hierarchy because they are used to being ‘Nannied’ like children whom dont have to think for themselves and make adult decisions… because the Government keeps encroaching into areas of self-responsibility. Why brush your teeth if the state will pay for you to have falce ones? Why do you think it is ok to tax people who brush their teeth, to pay for the dental work in those whom cant be bothered but expect others to pay their dental bills for them?”
Fairly basic sort of reasoning there… yet what followed really takes the sheepish ‘raisins’ and shows the sort of lunacy that has been fostered via The state indoctrination systems… It show just how thoroughly inoculated against freedom the sheeple are…
Lets call this contributor ‘Fluffy’
“Tim not sure of Nazism is allowed in NZ? oh, sorry, apparently it is…as 65% of New Zealanders are as they voted in Hitler Youth himself the great, the mighty, JOHN KEY!!! Ye!!”
Hemlock! I can bear no more!
Am I making a song and dance out of nothing? I wish I was! Yet as someone whom has been a Libertarian activist for well over a decade I regret to inform you that this is sadly an all to typical Kiwi crow.
I made my appeal to the highest authority…
“”Hey John, note how I got called a Nazi by *Fluffy* for advocating self responsibility! That is a typical ‘Sheeple’ response … they want Nanny to wipe their bums and tuck them in at night! And you wonder why our society is becoming so irresponsible! Advocating smaller/ less powerful government and personal responsibility can only be labeled *Totalitarian Nazism*… by brain dead Zombies! This is the society Nanny state has created.”
Quite self explanatory aye. (I’m no indifferent Philosopher!)
By Lefty Socialist logic Hitler was a Libertarian!
This does not bode well for New Zealand… unless you work for the Antichrist… then it’s Poetry! Kiwis are Gagging for it!
I can hear ‘Woolys’ thoughts…
“ Barrrr….Oh Nanny you’re so wonderful!
Libertarians are Evil!
They expect us to take care of ourselves… and bare the responsibility for our own amorality! How Cruel!
Thank God our Flock is bigger than theirs!”…
My Cranial shield, helps protect me from the ‘The screaming of the Lambs’. Tim Wikiriwhi
Andrew Little, David Cunliffe, Shane Jones … all have been touted as future leaders of New Zealand’s Labour Party. But Helen Clark’s successor (Goff was just fillin’) is relative newcomer David Shearer.
Helen Clark resigned from Parliament in 2009 to take up a post with the United Nations. A by-election was held in the Mount Albert electorate. David Shearer quit his United Nations post to contest and win the Mount Albert by-election and became the new Member of Parliament for Mount Albert. It’s early days, but I’m picking that Shearer will succeed Clark as New Zealand’s next Labour Prime Minister, too, in three years’ time.
A question for the Labour caucus: Is Shearer the Best of You or is he The Pretender?
Paul Holmes wrote an article which touched upon a subject I have recently been contemplating… The Brain Dead modus opperandi of the average voter.
Its here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/paul-holmes-on-new-zealand/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502869&objectid=10765413
It is titled ‘Phil Goff’s heartbreak – running in a race he knows he can’t win’
Here is the opening paragraph…
“The polling and the empty seats and the poor crowds of people over 90 years old must be breaking Phil Goff’s heart.
He’s been a loyal servant of the people for decades, and now the people are walking away from him.
I’ve written before about his ferocious capacity for hard work, which I witnessed once right through an all-day flight to Tokyo.
Head down in hundreds of pages of dense stuff, probably meaningless outside of the bureaucratic world but stuff he had to read and familiarise himself with.
That’s what politicians have to do: read endless screeds of boring stuff. But hard work alone doesn’t do it. Such is life.
You can talk about policy until you’re blue in the face, but in the end I wonder if people vote on policy. I don’t think they do. Most people don’t give a rats about policy. If we like the leader we vote for him.
When Holyoake was National leader, we voted for Holyoake. When Kirk came along we voted for Kirk. When Muldoon came along, we voted for Muldoon.
Rowling had a silly voice, so people continued to vote for Muldoon….”
Now I find those comments very interesting…very telling… about the dangers of unchecked Democracy…. Because it highlights the fact that Democracy in an unenlightened society… is fickle…. is Idiotic… and that it does not result in putting the best people, the most competent people in power. It shows one very important reason that the powers of Parliament must be kept to a minimum…constitutionally bound, so as to minimize the potential disaster that the elected morons and shysters can cause to the population they govern. Sadly no such restraints currently exist, and this is the primary reason successions of elected National and Labour governments have lead us into ruin.
In the past week I have talked to several people about the election and it is frightening to hear their voting Rationale.
One guy told me he was thinking of voting for the National Party’s Hamilton West candidate, Tim Macendo…. Not because he actually thinks hes been a good MP, but because in his word… “He’s the only hope of keeping Labour out of power.” Thus his electorate vote is being determined out of Fear of the Left. Now that is not necessarily an irrational fear, yet is that a proper/ wise way to Vote? He obviously thinks this is a clever strategy, yet I argue that such voting is not how one is supposed to use the electorate vote, that his argument is short sighted and a perversion of the two vote idea. It is actually very lazy because to caste a proper vote for your electorate ought to entail a thorough investigation of all the candidates and making the choice upon whom displays the most impressive character and values. That this type of ‘strategic thinking’ is very common, is one reason it is so hard for candidates from outside the ‘duopoly’ to get elected, even though they may indeed be by far the best candidate on offer. Punters will vote for the National party, or the Labour candidate irrespective of their competence.
This habit has not escaped the notice of unscrupulous Power trippers who seek to fast track themselves into Parliament. Knowing this weakness of the sheeple, they turn it to their own advantage. They will join the ranks of either National or Labour rather than any of the smaller parties…. Even if their true values better align with a minor party, because they know that by being in either of these two Parties almost guarantees they will make it into parliament within a few elections cycles. Thus these parties are filled with unscrupulous pragmatists whom would sell their Grandmothers into slavery for the sake of their own political ambitions. They are Political whores. They are prepared to actively work in opposition to minor parties that they actually believe to be right, yet choose to take a short cut into office and win personal power at the expense of their own moral convictions and principles. They are decievers.
Then you get the masses of People whom vote for their favorite Celebrity! Breakfast show hosts, Cooks, Gardeners, and Sportsman! In the Hamilton local body elections of 2007 television presenter Kay Gregory was the highest polling of all councillor candidates with 11,808 votes ( http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/16219/Simcock-back-down-to-business-today )
They elected her to council because they thought she was ‘Lovely’.
Several Blokes I have talked to recently say they’re going to vote for Sehai Orgrad (Labour party candidate for Hamilton West). Why? Because they think she’s ‘Hot’.
That Pisses me off! That they can be so callous as to vote for such a Nasty power tripper… consumed with her own self importance, simply because they fantasizes about ‘banging her’, is a frigging travesty! It’s a tragic example of how frivolously they choose whom will govern them, and shows plainly that many New Zealanders are unfit to participate in the democratic process. That is a ludicrous reason for deciding for whom to vote! Conversely not voting for a good and principled candidate because you think they are ‘ugly’ is equal Lunacy.
And The Media seem to think the same way. They are suckers for charisma and celebrity. An article appeared recently in the NZ Herald regarding a poll “Who was the sexiest candidate standing for election”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10765210
The lack of quality Political analysis and investigative journalism is a hallmark of the Major Media players, with very few exceptions. They are the lapdogs of the Status quo. It is almost impossible for outsiders to get their view herd in the mainstream media. This is a shameful betrayal of their moral obligations as Free press in a Democracy. Quite often the smaller Papers do a better job of informing the public about alternatives to the Satus Quo.
To think that some people are prepared to Damn our country to hell simply because they wanna vote for the Hot Demoness is a short skirt just goes to show how Democracy does not tend to deliver the highest caliber of Government, and how dangerous it is not to have constitutional restraints on Parliament! The truth is if we had a proper constitution which restricted the powers and spheres of operation of Government, this would reduce the risk to life and liberty posed by an elected Parliament of Cooks Rugby players and show girls.
We live in a Godless world that has lost faith in Principles. What is left that really matters?
Palmerston North MP Iain Lees-Galloway remembers fondly the days when his cultured palate was enriched with vast quantities of 50 cent cans of Rheineck beer.
I remember this from my student days. We would always look at the cheapest product that week, whether it be Tui, or Rheineck, or some of those other quality products. I remember Rheineck being 50c a can – it was disgusting.
And this is the prime example of buying something for one purpose only, and that is for its alcohol content and its cheapness, because you wouldn’t buy Rheineck on the taste …
Quite right, too. You wouldn’t buy Rheineck on the taste. Why would you buy Rheineck?
You can still buy Rheineck. It’s currently on special at Foodtown, Woolworths and Countdown. $13.59 for a 12-pack of 330ml cans. Today’s price per can is $1.29, compared to 50 cents circa 1999. That’s a 250% price increase in 12 years.
