The family Mr Key befriended a couple of years back are still struggling.
But it's not their fault.
Mrs Nathan just had her sixth child while on the DPB.
"Bread, milk, everything that we need that is a basic necessity for us is going to be more expensive. It's going to be harder for us to feed our kids."
See, the DPB doesn't pay enough Prime Minister, "arsehole".
Around the time she had her latest child her oldest was removed from her care.
"...which Mrs Nathan said was better because "it's a life I can't give her"."
Poor thing. Poor things, both of them. The eldest "got in with the wrong crowd". Nothing to do with Mrs Nathan who likes to call people arseholes because they won't give her the extra money that she surely deserves. No. Her values are very sound.
I don't know what's wrong with this country. The government should make rich arseholes like me, people who work hard and plan their families, pay more tax so Mrs Nathan can get a bigger benefit and her new baby doesn't end up like her oldest. Because if we aren't made to fork out now, we will only end up forking out more later.
Welfare justice for all! That's what we need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Too many losers with too little money and reluctant to work.
Ah, the beauty if beign a bludger!
She really is oblivious to what she's saying, isn't she.
The thought that she is responsible for her situation and for her children just does not cross her mind.
Two year limit on DPB. Starting now.
She continues to be an excellent mascot for Mr Key and his style of politics.
All words, no practical solutions. Just keep coasting in the vain hope that things get better. Talk about improving things, but keep doing the same things you always did.
Truly no greater metaphor for NZ and the National Party's continuing mediocrity.
"Truly no greater metaphor for NZ and the National Party's continuing mediocrity."
Exactly.
She lost one kid to CYFS so she had to make up the lost income somewhere.
Working for it is obviously a lot harder than getting pregnant again.
Bash the poor while the money shufflers collect their bonuses for maintaining inequality.Such compassion.
Maybe her fifth child is 5years old.
Anon, compassion runs out when someone who could hardly support her 3 children in 2007 now has 6 children in 2011.
There is such a thing as personal responsibility and being on welfare long term erodes any responsibility that may have existed.
It seems 100 years ago that I got into hot water for suggesting that we provide a financial incentive to get sterilized for those who had abused their children. Cue howls of protest, references to Nazi Germany - and some sensible discussion.
This woman is the epitome of what happens when you provide incentives to breed regardless of one's own ability to look after the offspring. While she is not a child abuser per se, is bringing children into a life of almost inevitable poverty - because the DPB provides only subsistence - lack of opportunity, and dysfunction not a form of abuse?
It is time we disabused ourselves of the foolish idea that it is everyone's "right" to produce as many children as they wish, and have the taxpayer look after them - after a fashion.
Anon 3.27, can we bash yo uintead for being such a moron? please... pretty please!
honestly, your mother must have had no access to iodine when you were in utero, and then into your formative years.
Where in your befuddled thought processes does this sponge's responsibilities start and the taxpayers' finish?
Why should our rights to providing for our planned families be impinged because we have to support a never ending stream of progeny, especially given this societal parasite has already proven that she is inadequate at parenting, due to the failure of her eldest child to remain in her custody?
The insult to the taxpayer is 3 fold with the addition of the neonate, in so far as that baby requires additional handouts, but the foster parents/ CYFS/ Social welfare officers/ Police etc all require cash to maintain and care for her first born due to her inadequacies.
If ever an argument were needed for the institution of time limits to DPB dependency were needed, one needs only to look to that woman, and her ilk.
To re-iterate a previous post elsewhere..."perhaps if she got off her back for long enough, her consort could get off her front and start looking for a job to look after the progeny properly"
"Anonymous said...
Bash the poor while the money shufflers collect their bonuses for maintaining inequality.Such compassion."
Note "maintaining inequality". That is the thrust of what the Greens are promoting; the idea that more equal societies have fewer negative statistics. One of the more equal societies they cite is Japan, but in Japan they don't have a dpb, instead you have an abortion.
The far-left are trying rise from the dead but I don't think workers are too keen on welfare gentry, which they try to lump together.
I don't blame the poor so much as us taxpayers. We're only getting what we deserve due to enough of us being convinced that we should tolerate the numbers living that way, and the costs.
Joan and Aroha are choosing from the options they perceive are open to them. Us taxpayers allow them to choose from those limited options. It's like watching 'That Guy's cooking show.
When it is a toss up whether or not you'll get more money on welfare than working, why work!
We haven't got the ...guts...(nice one Dame Susan Devoy) to handle the jandal.
Post a Comment