(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

A pinch and a punch for the first of the month...
... and no returns.

Helen Clark is SO CLOSE TO LOSING MY VOTE. If she reacts ONCE MORE to Don Brash and his fucking WASTE OF TIME speeches, I swear I am going directly to Progressive Coalition.\

Comments

[decado.livejournal.com]

Welfare should be an emergency option, not a choice. Ie "Crap, I've LOST my job and I CAN'T find work right now, in order not to DIE I'll go on the benefit untill I find something" not "Beh, I've QUIT my job because I'm lazy and DON'T WANT to work so I'll go on welfare".
These days - because of Labour's sparkling performance in government - there is absolutly no excuse to be on the dole long term.

Personally I have no problem paying high tax rates if I feel my money is being used to benefit society, not bludgers.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Look, how many people do you know who choose to be on welfare? The dole, specifically?

And what do you think of the DPB? Do you believe in working mothers? Funnily, the people who are so quick to slam the "high" DPB (ha. ha. ha.) are also those who like to emphasise the traditional family unit- so, mothers should stay home and take care of their children- but not if they're on the DPB. Because then, SHOCK that they should want to, you know, TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN PERSONALLY of anything. (I think nannies are basically a crime, and creches and stuff are responsible for, well, half my classmates.)

*le sigh* You know, I actually don't have any statistics on this, and I don't know where to find them. But I will bet you 10% of my tax returns (I so cannot wait until March) that welfare is NOT where the majority of your taxes go.

[decado.livejournal.com]

Personally, 3. And considering my background, that's alot.

Does it sound too harsh to say, if you can't afford to have kids, don't have them? That's not what I do think, but close, there should certainly be help for mothers, and I completly agree with you that Mum's should be given the choice to stay home and look after their kids.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I beleive it's approximatly 1/3. That seems a hell of alot to me.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Three. Wow. that's a LOT. But what was your background again? Am I to assume these three are of a similar background to youers? Somehow, I suspect that's not the typical dole bludger background, is it?

Well, yeah, actually, it does sound harsh. But I'm glad you agree with me about working mothers, anyway.

Oh, I know what's wrong with that- it's like, you're trying to control people based on their financial circumstances- like, if you're not rich, it's not okay to have a family. Children are the most valuable resource, possibly second to, like, petrol or something, so... oh man, I'm totally babbling, but I'm trying to combine the ideas of children as being valuable in themselves and that, it's hard to explain, buyt just because people are poor doesn't mean they should be discriminated against, and that's what that statement was.

Um. Dude. We have like the lowest unemployment ever. I'm not sure how, therefore, the dole itself can be 1/3 of our spending.

And even if it was, one third is STILL NOT A MAJORITY.

[decado.livejournal.com]

My background is pretty much very comfortable (I hate "class") white. And when I think about it it's closer to 4, I've had 2 cousins dole bludge (they are no longer) and know of 2 others who currently do. Including a qualified chef (and he's damn good) who just doesn't like working, in fact he quit a good job because it's easier to stay home because he can still afford a good lifestyle on the dole.

I agree with you, it's important that people should be able to have children, the percentage that abuse the system are very few, I actually don't agree with Brash on his stance.

Your right, although the unemployment rate is low because of more factors than just alot of jobs out there. But surprisingly spending has not droppped. Read this http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_article&article_id=250 (haha, and note the title!).

I never said it was a majority, I said it was too much.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure that if I were amrter, I could make an argument out of the fact that all the examples you just gave were of upper-middle-class (sorry) dole bludgers. Them, okay, that bothers me. But what I see to be the stereotype of the dole bludger is the poorer, probably Polynesian, usually male guy who is too lazy to go to work- and that one really bothers me, because I just don't think that there are all that many people whose pride would allow them to do that.

Ooh, you don't agree with Brash? Dude!

Er, got a less biased source, btw??

Even if you didn't...
"unemployment and emergency benefits, -19%
sickness benefit, +62%
invalid's benefit, +149%
domestic purposes benefit, +41%
superannuation, +15%"

Hey, those are GOOD benefits. I think it is our social responsibility to take care of the sick and elderly, frankly, just as some of us will one day need to be taken care of. You'll note the expenditure that dropped was unemployment...

Also. "[spending last year was]$1.634 billion - an amount almost identical to the dole bill of 1993."
So 1.639B in 1993, 1.634 in 2003- but not only has the actual monetary value spent dropped, it has done so despite inflation. Yet later on in the article the author complains

"Yes, welfare spending on unemployment has dropped significantly but growth in every other area has meant overall spending continues to climb. "

Um, they just PROVED that it has not. *headthunk*