Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Prime Minister - right and wrong

I talked to the Prime Minister today. He was doing his regular question and answer session on NewstalkZB . The host, Justin du Fresne, tackled him about work-testing the DPB and the problem of people adding to their families to get around it. Mr Key said if we can just park that for a moment, went onto a related issue and didn't return to it. So I rang in and asked him not to park it. And while he was busy getting people off the DPB and into work at one end, what was he going to do about the couple of thousand of teenagers going on it every year?

Here is his answer.

NewstalkZB at 52:59

I was particularly interested in the last thing he said. That the US time limits were "in states" which gave the advantage of simply being able to pack up and move to another state. That is exactly the objection I used to hear from the Left.

If this was the case, that people could move to another state where there wasn't a time limit (wrong), or one could start one's entitlement over (wrong) one would expect to see reduction in some states and growth in others. That wasn't the case. Not in the early days, when the rolls plummeted, and not from Jan 2004 - Jan 2008 when only four states showed slight growth - Maine 12%, Massachusetts 6%, Oregon 8% and South Dakota 2% - and that was probably due to the recession beginning. I was unable to challenge him on it having been disconnected after putting the question. But that's OK. It's a great opportunity anyway.



To his credit he acknowledged that some people were having children to either get on or stay on a benefit but, reading between the lines, there is little appetite to change because of the "what will happen to the child?" argument.

As I have said before, that is exactly what some beneficiaries bank on. Children are meal tickets and hostages to their own desired lifestyle.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

We should also aknowledge the large number of imature male and female peoples, who, just have nooky just for the fun of it. While the resultant by-product is ignored by the teenage fathers as they fuck their way to new and more exciting moments of enlightenment, the system is there to look after young girls who have the IQ of a brick who in a state of total bewilderment, become a burden on the state.

Sholud we turn our back on these incompetents, or should we demand abortion after their first bad judgement call?

Meanwhile these miserable examples of manhood continue to impregnate the lest capable amongst us with little or no responsibility. Perhaps sterilisation should apply to young men after their first misplaced romp in the hay?

Dirk

Anonymous said...

Steralisation, Opps i meant castration. In a moment of weakness my gonads took over my typing.

Dirk

Its after six aND THE GIN IS FLOWING FAST...

bez said...

In my view the "answer" was a straw man argument followed by a prevarication. The issue is not whether the state should "take the child away" or what would happen then, nor is the US example at all relevant, let alone factually correct. The real message in the answer is that the PM doesn't have the balls to address or even recognize the real issues fronting this socialist hole. End of the day we should have been wiser than to elect someone who has wanted to be PM from the age of eleven. That simple acknowledgment should've warned us that that John was in it for the job and its perks only, not for the substance of it.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what the difference between castration and sterilisation but I understand the latter can be reversed ... when the man becomes a responsible married man perhaps. The fly in the ointment of course is sheeting home the responsibility to which male. The answer to ' for the child's benefit' is to remove them from the clueless female. Though abortion is the best answer becuase the world doesn't need more home saps. Just read Prince Charles quote about if he is reincarnated he would like to come back as a virulent virus to kill off some of the worlds surplus and disasterous population. jcuknz

Anonymous said...

Homo saps not home saps .. sorry
jcuknz

Anonymous said...

Sholud we turn our back on these incompetents, or should we demand abortion after their first bad judgement call?


Given the choice of a forced abortion to some teenage loser or forced taxation of productive NZ for 16, 20, 30, 50, 100 years to pay for the "mother" and the kid(s)

we should force abortion every time - unless the parents can come up with say a payment of $100,000 to cover expenses of their kids from bith til they time they are independent taxpayers.

Then if the parents (or anyone else) can't cover say a measly flat $10,000 tax per annum, we 9mm them too.


This policy will solve basically ALL of NZ's problems.

Shane Pleasance said...

I sometimes have nooky just for the fun of it. I do not expect the state to take care of me. By the state, I mean taxpayers.

I have no right to enforce sterilization or somesuch on anyone. By the same token, they have no right to expect me to support their bad choices. Easy. I may choose to assist in the form of charity. Or I may not.

Anonymous said...

I know of one case in my area where a lad at the high school has impregnated 2 young 13/14 year old girls.

The teen parent unit at the school will assist these children to continue their education while they attempt parenthood.

Meanwhile the young man in question has no concept of what is happening and considers the episode a bit of a joke.

Dirk.

My word verification is REAVOC. rather app I thought in a crytic sort of way.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.