Congratulations 48%

[Oscar]

Hmmm... allow me to interpret your little rant. You disagree with what those of us on the left say, but because your opinion isn't based on anything substantive and you lack the ability to construct and defend a logical and compelling argument in support of your position you want people who don't agree with you to go away and stop making your head spin.

Muppets, too funny!

My interpretation is somewhat different. He appears to be sick of supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectuals who confuse personal attacks with cogent ‎argument. ‎

Pompous cunts, too funny...

[Crasherfromwayback]

My interpretation is somewhat different. He appears to be sick of supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectuals who confuse personal attacks with cogent ‎argument. ‎

Pompous cunts, too funny...

Thanks Oscar. Saved me saying it!

Bet he writes letters to the editor of his local paper on a daily basis too.

[shrub]

The hypocrisy is that while everyone would like the deficit reduced they still want to have their cake and eat it too. No-one wants any pain.

Or everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. The neoliberalist doctrine holds that economic success comes from cutting taxes and reducing government expenditure through allowing the private sector to provide all but the most fundamental of what government's used to supply. The theory is that lower taxes give citizens more money which they can then spend on what their taxes used to cover. Fundamental to the success of this concept is the idea that privately owned businesses operating in a competitive free market are more efficient and competitive than state run enterprises with no competition.

Unfortunately worldwide experience has shown that the free market model generally offers more expensive services than the state, usually with few advantages. Therefore the services we depend on are either still being paid for by the state from a reduced tax take, or are more expensive which means most people (including businesses) have less money.

The neoliberal answer to that problem is to call for tax cuts, and over the last 25 years we have had a steady stream of tax cuts and most western governments have been spending far more than they have been earning and borrowing to fill the gap. The neoliberal solution to these huge deficits is to cut government spending, and while there were incredible efficiencies made 25 years ago, all the low hanging fruit have been picked and the only way to reduce government spending is to cut what are now increasingly essential services.

Why not just bite the bullet and raise taxes? I wouldn't have a problem if my tax rate was increased if it meant that we'd avoid going bankrupt just as a clever businessman will reduce drawings if the business is in a slump. We're all in the shit which means everyone needs to "cut their cloth", not just low income earners and beneficiaries.

The previous NZ Government had golden economic weather and squandered 9 years of opportunity to move the country forward.

So was it a bad idea to pay off government debt and rebuild the stripped infrastructure? Would it have been better if they had have given us all tax cuts so we could buy more TVs?

[BoristheBiter]

So was it a bad idea to pay off government debt and rebuild the stripped infrastructure? Would it have been better if they had have given us all tax cuts so we could buy more TVs?

What stripped infrastructure? they brought back Kiwirail at a loss and in worse condition then when it was sold.

Good economic sense (insert Tui add here)

[Crasherfromwayback]

. The neoliberalist doctrine

The neoliberal answer


The neoliberal solution

Until today, salubrious was my favourite word.

[shrub]

I'm not aware of any tax breaks or subsidies for the dairy industry - our competitors such as the USA would jump on the World Trade Organisation if that was true. .

It's all a little more discreet than simple subsidies or tax breaks. A key raw material used by the modern NZ dairy industry is water because dairy has moved from the traditional areas with good rainfall (Waikato etc) to places like the Canterbury Plains and Central Otago that need irrigation. The water to do that costs the farmer nothing despite that water being a finite resource. If I run a factory and i have waste materials, I pay someone to take those wastes away and put them in a landfill, whereas a farmer doesn't have that problem. When his cow pisses or shits (waste product from his business) that waste usually finds it's way into the water system which is why so many of our rivers and lakes are fucked. Who pays to clean those lakes? The taxpayer who is subsidising the farmer. And if a factory emits carbon they pay for that carbon, whereas a farmer doesn't.

[Swoop]

And don't forget the model country Canada.

An interesting point. Making the south islanders speak french would be entertaining.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Making the south islanders speak french would be entertaining.

What language do they speak way down South? Sure as hell doesn't sound like English.

[Swoop]

What language do they speak way down South? Sure as hell doesn't sound like English.

Even more reasons to make them speak an internationally used language.

[BoristheBiter]

It's all a little more discreet than simple subsidies or tax breaks. A key raw material used by the modern NZ dairy industry is water because dairy has moved from the traditional areas with good rainfall (Waikato etc) to places like the Canterbury Plains and Central Otago that need irrigation. The water to do that costs the farmer nothing despite that water being a finite resource. If I run a factory and i have waste materials, I pay someone to take those wastes away and put them in a landfill, whereas a farmer doesn't have that problem. When his cow pisses or shits (waste product from his business) that waste usually finds it's way into the water system which is why so many of our rivers and lakes are fucked. Who pays to clean those lakes? The taxpayer who is subsidising the farmer. And if a factory emits carbon they pay for that carbon, whereas a farmer doesn't.

Proves how little you know.

[mashman]

What stripped infrastructure? they brought back Kiwirail at a loss and in worse condition then when it was sold.

Good economic sense (insert Tui add here)

What would you have done? Let the rail network be rendered unusable? What would that have done to the economy? And when it was bought back, why couldn't we buy it back for $1 if it was in such a bad condition?

[BoristheBiter]

What would you have done? Let the rail network be rendered unusable? What would that have done to the economy? And when it was bought back, why couldn't we buy it back for $1 if it was in such a bad condition?

Like you said i would have brought it back for a dollar, at the most paid scrape value.
As to why they didn't, well only Helen will know that one.

[shrub]

My interpretation is somewhat different. He appears to be sick of supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectuals who confuse personal attacks with cogent ‎argument. ‎

Pompous cunts, too funny...

I prefer arrogant to pompous, but then I also prefer big boned to fat and high forehead to bald.

If he is sick of "supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectuals who confuse personal attacks with cogent ‎argument", then why doesn't he present a cogent argument to support his position or challenge what us "pseudo-intellectuals" say? And yes, I called him a muppet (hard not to really), but apart from that if you look at my posts almost every single one of them presents a reasoned response to what someone else says, although I openly admit that sometimes I am a little sarcastic. However you called me a "pompous cunt" and a "supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectual" - is that, despite being distressingly accurate, a personal attack or a cogent argument?

And if Boris is so keen on cogent argument and so sick of personal attack, why did he call people who disagree with him "whining wankers" and "moaning know all cunts"? Or was that OK because it was a general attack, not a personal attack?

[BoristheBiter]

I prefer arrogant to pompous, but then I also prefer big boned to fat and high forehead to bald.

If he is sick of "supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectuals who confuse personal attacks with cogent ‎argument", then why doesn't he present a cogent argument to support his position or challenge what us "pseudo-intellectuals" say? And yes, I called him a muppet (hard not to really), but apart from that if you look at my posts almost every single one of them presents a reasoned response to what someone else says, although I openly admit that sometimes I am a little sarcastic. However you called me a "pompous cunt" and a "supercilious ‎pseudo-intellectual" - is that, despite being distressingly accurate, a personal attack or a cogent argument?

And if Boris is so keen on cogent argument and so sick of personal attack, why did he call people who disagree with him "whining wankers" and "moaning know all cunts"? Or was that OK because it was a general attack, not a personal attack?

Who said i was sick of personal attacks? some of you guys come up with some good'ns. Makes KB more enjoyable.

[Edbear]

JFK ''Its not what your country can do for you, its what you can do for your country'' It seems so many people expect the Government to be their keeper and to dip into a bottomless pit.

Same goes for many employees, too. People need to realise that they are the key to survival and prosperity and the harder they work and the more honest they are, the better off everyone would be. The Government would have the money they need due to everyone paying taxes correctly, and the employer would have a successful business due to the integrity of its employees.

Too many people are ripping off the system, both welfare and business through greed and a lack of moral integrity and laziness born of long term welfare dependence to the point that these one's genuinely believe the country owes them.

Yes, the country needs a reserve of manpower, ie: a percentage of unemplyment to take up the slack when things get busy, but these one's need to be training and ready to work at a moment's notice, not sitting around bludging and wasting their lives being unemployable. People who are learning and getting qualifications are far happier and more motivated than those who prefer to sit around on their playstations, boozing and taking drugs and causing mayhem in their communities.

Youth complaining about lack of opportunites and places to let off steam are simply selfish and lazy. Back in the day we made our own fun and entertainment and didn't have to break the law to do it, well not seriously anyway.... I started working at 11 years old and by 13 had a lawn-mowing "business". At 14 I added a newspaper round to that and paid for my own first car myself. It's called initiative and looking for ways to work and earn and not being too fussy about what you start with.

Our kids have grown up expecting to be responsible for their choices and to have to work to get ahead, to be patient and not too fussy or demanding, to be honest as empoyees and gain the respect of their bosses and those they integrate with. Result? They are all working and happy, not on the dole or complaining about their lot in life. Have they had it easy? Not on your nelly they haven't and what they have gone through would raise the eyebrows of many on here, but they have survived and adapted and got stronger and learned how to cope and make the best of their situations.

Our son is a good example as he was ADHD and still has learning difficulties but he understood the need to cope and get around his disability and he's rarely been out of work. At 36 he's got a good steady job, has gained qualifications and could pretty much get work anywhere due to his experience and his attitude.

They never whinge and expect anyone to carry them, and they don't care who's in Govt. either as it's never made any difference to them. As parents we have helped them out at times, but they never take advantage and always pay us back and they don't expect us to support them.

So to all the whingers I ask, "What are you doing to change your situation?"