-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582354" data-time="1464134310">
<div>
<p>If you mean micro- policies - or, in fact, social policies - then I'm inclined to agree. I increasingly get the impression that New Zealand is a great place to live if you're rich or, at least, comfortably off - but, it is pretty shit if you're dirt poor. Now, the righteous among us will say that being poor is not supposed to be fun and should give you the motivation to get off your fat, lazy arse and get rich. Harsh reality is that some people just can't - and we have had our feet on the throats of the dole-bludgers for thirty years, I'm inclined to think most should have been weeded out.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A significant problem with this government, I think, is that with an ineffectual opposition and a pissant media, levels of accountability are sliding. The default option in their responses to questioning seems to me increasingly to brook no disagreement "we are doing a great job". They know they can get away with it. In the past week, you can see this in Judith Collins' response on Blessie Gotinco, Nathan Guy just talking past the questions on fish dumping, and that arrogant little arse Nick Smith on housing (Jesus I cannot stand Nick Smith)!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>One thing I will say about the equally arrogant Winston is that he's got a better eye for an opening than most and can at least land a punch.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582421" data-time="1464141764">
<div>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me since it attributes things to me that I haven't said nor implied. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The current social welfare system and broader social policies don't appear to me to be doing enough - so not effective enough. $28.2 billion is just a relative number - it may be that we need to spend more, or we may need to spend what we're allocating more efficiently. Whatever the government is doing doesn't seem to be working for the poorest, so perhaps a bit less of spouting ideology on their behalf and a bit more attention to special cases.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dogmeat" data-cid="582573" data-time="1464157810">
<div>
<p>Can't I simply continue to drink myself into the grave. Quick and painless just isn't the kiwi way. Stupid pointless and drawn out is far more our thing</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Did everyone else read this as "Dogmeat is shouting if you ever meet up for a beer"?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hydro11" data-cid="582421" data-time="1464141764">
<div>
<p>Where in the world is it good to be poor? Being poor is a relative term. The poorest in New Zealand are better off than the wealthiest in many other countries around the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Your post also confuses me. You say that some people 'just can't' get rich immediately after saying how many poor people there are. Are you saying that if we create a few more government programmes we can turn the poor into rich?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The New Zealand government <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure'>currently spends</a> 28.2 billion on social welfare with health spending and education spending on top of that. I would be thrilled to know that if New Zealand is such a bad place to be poor, how effective you think the current social welfare system is? How much more money do we have to spend before New Zealand becomes a good place for the poor to live?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I posted this on the other thread ,<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-09/from-new-zealand-to-pittsburgh-a-moneyball-approach-to-helping-troubled-kids'>http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-09/from-new-zealand-to-pittsburgh-a-moneyball-approach-to-helping-troubled-kids</a></p>
<p>They are trying a different approach, not sure how long its going to take to see the effects.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd be keen on anything program that stops us subsidising ferals like this. <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936'>http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11643936</a></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="582459" data-time="1464144805">
<div>
<p>Health spending has been creeping up. IIRC, it's up to nearly 10% of GDP from ~ 8% a decade ago. <strong>That's pretty high by OECD standards.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know how such things are calculated and reported in NZ, nor in fact do I know anything about actual figures in the UK or otherwise. What I do know is that our reporting standards change hugely depending upon whether the reporter (i.e. Government, Opposition, third party with an agenda) wishes to increase or decrease spending on healthcare and/or welfare. The figures seem to me just complete bullshit, consequently all i want to know is whether what is being provided is fit for purpose and are we spending the money in an efficient manner. In the UK the answer to both is clearly no.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="582330" data-time="1464128918"><p>
As usual they've run out of other people's money . If only they'd followed the example of other successful socialist countries like ....um.........I'm stuck here. Anyone help me out?</p></blockquote>
Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, psychos. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582595" data-time="1464160015">
<div>
<p>Norway is the one you're looking for. They've both got oil and proximity to large markets, so Venezuela would have been a total success if it had followed the example of Norway. Oh, and been populated by nice, sensible, even-tempered, honest Norwegians.<br><br>
Instead of, you know, <strong>psychos</strong>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>What do you expect when a significant proportion of the population are unhappy because they don't get enough to eat, like this for example</p>
<p><img src="http://pnews.missuniversusa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Miss-Venezuela-2015-Favoritas1-e1442355057708.jpg" alt="Miss-Venezuela-2015-Favoritas1-e14423550"></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JC" data-cid="582619" data-time="1464163490">
<div>
<p>She was 140kgs just a year ago. She's lost so much weight her clothes have fallen off.<br><br>
Why is that dude combing her arm?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"It rubs the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again"</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582449" data-time="1464144240">
<div>
<p>Your post also confuses me since it attributes things to me that I haven't said nor implied. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The current social welfare system and broader social policies don't appear to me to be doing enough - so not effective enough. $28.2 billion is just a relative number - it may be that we need to spend more, or we may need to spend what we're allocating more efficiently. Whatever the government is doing doesn't seem to be working for the poorest, so perhaps a bit less of spouting ideology on their behalf and a bit more attention to special cases.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not spouting any ideology. I just don't see the point in criticising the government for not helping the poor enough if you can't make any judgements on the effectiveness of current welfare expenditure or if you can't articulate any proposed solutions to help the poor. How can anyone rebut your criticism if you believe the government isn't doing enough but you don't know what doing more looks like? As it happens, I think a good proportion of the 28.2 billion is wasted on the middle class. I might believe Labour a bit more on helping the poor if they didn't decide to give tax breaks to people earning $150,000 just because they decided to have 6 kids.</p>
NZ Politics