Key 'out of touch' over hungry kids

[Brian d marge]

James, that not what people want to hear, it doesnt fit in with "their" reality...
whenI was young I yadada yadda
they fail to realised the world has changed ,I would say " fundamentally" in 1968,71 which is leading to a non egalitarian society(s)
this creates a social divide, with the resulant divorced communities
untill we realise that and stop pretending or reading stuff.co.nz......it will just get worse

stephen

sorry from phone sosorry about grammatics

[Matariki]

Proper nouns should be capitalised.

1. salvation army (sic): Conditional help based on recruiting a revenue stream. There is no other reason for their help. No other reason for the help given by any religious charity.
2. red cross (sic): Que? Not in NZ.
3. food bank (sic): which one, run by whom? Most of them struggle to keep their stocks of food to give away up, because the people with the disposable income to donate food have this set of beliefs (and it is faith based, they're not the kind of right-thinking people to let facts get in the way) where people who need food banks both deserve to be poor for being shit human beings and are responsible for providing their own food so I'm not giving any food to the food bank. If you watch who puts food in the food bank donation bins at the local Pak'n'Save you'll note that the majority of those donating it, don't look like they can really afford to.

As I keep telling people, when you are on the bones of your arse there is no help. You have to be an addict and beating your wife and kids before anyone notices and then it's generally the Police and Mental Health Services and your life is properly over and you're rendered state-dependent forever. When I needed help (twice) there was none. In the end we simply turned up on the doorstep of family (but not until we ran out of money) and made them pay attention. We got kicked in the guts twice in the space of 6 months and there was no charity agency willing to do anything because I was stupid enough to keep my job going and family went beyond being unsupportive and into the realms of physical and emotional abuse. We're out the other side, we paid our own way (and will keep paying until the day we die) and no one stepped up. So don't kid yourself that there is anything like State or Charity aid for average Kiwis in the crap, or that you poor taxpayers are carrying a huge burden because of malingering benefit bludgers. You're not. You're helping a growing percentage of Kiwis adjust to life with no frills. 98% of them get off benefits in 3 months.

A few people who I am proud to call "friend" went the extra mile and gave me somewhere to live when family started assaulting me, some people rang and rang and rang to make sure I was OK so I didn't do anything stupid, but the one thing that characterised this help was that they were neither from charities nor the Government. Don't kid yourself that Charities are there to help people and neither is the Government. Both groups, as diverse as they are, are interested only in pushing their own agenda, and for both this is maintaining their own financially oriented position in the world, often at the expense of people who actually ask them for help but don't get it.

This I can't argue with, and you're clearly talking from experience. I still think though that its not the government's moral responsibility to make sure that children are feed. Its the parents. As for the food bank, yes, you're right there also. I asked my parents about the food bank (as they used to donate to them), and they pretty much repeated what you said. For me it boils down these questions; "who should be picking up the slack?", and "what would be the best choice of action?" and "how much would it cost in both the short term and in the long run?"

One idea (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) would be for the government to offer a food subsidy (or lunch fund) for schools in poor areas that families (legal parents or guardians) could apply their children for (based on their level of income) through WINZ?

[scumdog]

I still think though that its not the government's moral responsibility to make sure that children are feed. Its the parents.

Many here think the government should keep well out of peoples lives.
Yet this thread shows a different light...it seems that some think they SHOULD interfere with how some the raise their kids..

[James Deuce]

This I can't argue with, and you're clearly talking from experience. I still think though that its not the government's moral responsibility to make sure that children are feed. Its the parents. As for the food bank, yes, you're right there also. I asked my parents about the food bank (as they used to donate to them), and they pretty much repeated what you said. For me it boils down these questions; "who should be picking up the slack?", and "what would be the best choice of action?" and "how much would it cost in both the short term and in the long run?"

One idea (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) would be for the government to offer a food subsidy (or lunch fund) for schools in poor areas that families (legal parents or guardians) could apply their children for (based on their level of income) through WINZ?

You're not thinking. At all. There's no longer any such thing as "poor areas". The vast majority of the Middle Class have slid into an income bracket that makes them the untouchables of the Western World.

In terms of your "subsidy" idea - what?

Income? What? I have a reasonable income. Doesn't matter when your net income is -$300pw.

When I say "Government" I mean society. Government is the instrument that ensures that society's values are maintained and projected equitably across society. To an extent. I don't expect that we tax Bob Jones at 98% or any other wealthy individual, but I do expect society to feed kids who aren't being fed, for whatever reason. It's not their fault their support systems have collapsed. Heaven help me if where we've got to is a society that is happy punishing children for their caregivers mistakes, misfortunes, and disasters. What a horrible place to live.

This isn't a thinly veiled "won't someone think of the children" rant. We've just done our best to help a kid whose support structures have collapsed, but we can't adopt him because we aren't evenly vaguely connected to his whanau. He's gone to live with his Great Aunt, who has diabetes and is in renal failure, and his Nan he was living with died of pneumonia a month ago. He behaves badly, he's been labelled with ADHD, but he is really just a kid who wants someone to tell him what's what. But society would rather chuck him on the scrapheap because of his race and "issues". He has no issues I couldn't sort out or adapt to inside 3 months. He's also the one kid in a classroom of kids who sticks up for my middle son who is a chronic asthamtic and has an unidentified neurological condition that stops him from walking and talking periodically. That kid we can't adopt has a better sense of right and wrong than a John Key-led Society.

Heaven help you New Zealand, Heaven help you.

[mashman]

Many here think the government should keep well out of peoples lives.
Yet this thread shows a different light...it seems that some think they SHOULD interfere with how some the raise their kids..

nahhh, many here think that the govt should keep well out of peoples lives as long as they're doing something to help themselves... just like that fat cow thinks - Too many kids are struggling - Bennett

"Paula Bennett admits she's grappled with some of the new rules being imposed on beneficiaries.

The Social Development Minister is bringing in regulations which will see parents penalised financially, if their children don't attend early education.

She's told TVNZ's Q&A programme the plans conflict with her previous position - that governments shouldn't interfere with people's lives.
"I see too many kids that are struggling and not getting ahead in life ... I see it happening generation after generation and I want to make a difference and I have an opportunity to do that and I'm taking it.""

Do as you're told or we'll make life even harder for ya. To a degree I think they should get directly involved, but more along the lines of changing the environment i.e. a couple of months in a remote place (maybe the Chathams) but with fuck all but food, water and a roof over their heads (perhaps a ball and some books). That sort of shit costs way too much money though . Much cheaper to tighten the money screw and then say it's their own fault if they do not comply. She'll make a difference alright... along the lines of parents being dropped in gaol coz their kids are truant or coz their kids received a smacked arse... doesn't want to interfere my fat fuckin hairy white arse. People here probably think it'll stop at beneficiaries and that it only happens because it's only the bad parents who get "caught" It'll keep you in a job if nothing else.

[Matariki]

You're not thinking. At all. There's no longer any such thing as "poor areas". The vast majority of the Middle Class have slid into an income bracket that makes them the untouchables of the Western World.

Economy isn't my strong point, far from it. Let me try and clarify (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) By poor areas, I meant suburbs consisting of families or individuals who receive a low income.

In terms of your "subsidy" idea - what?

I'll try and rephrase it (I do have dyslexia, so please try to bear with me)

Could the government subsidize schools (if they're not doing so) for the cost of food and provide free lunches for those who come from low income households?

Income? What? I have a reasonable income. Doesn't matter when your net income is -$300pw.

I'm not sure If I'm reading this correctly; do you mean negative $300 or $300 per week? and in what context? $300pw would be fine for an adult who's flatting and sharing the rent or who is paying board, but $300pw would be scraping the barrel if that's all you got to support you and a couple of a kids.

When I say "Government" I mean society. Government is the instrument that ensures that society's values are maintained and projected equitably across society. To an extent. I don't expect that we tax Bob Jones at 98% or any other wealthy individual, but I do expect society to feed kids who aren't being fed, for whatever reason. It's not their fault their support systems have collapsed. Heaven help me if where we've got to is a society that is happy punishing children for their caregivers mistakes, misfortunes, and disasters. What a horrible place to live.

Oh, ok, I thought by government you meant those in parliament. In an ideal world (which we don't live in) parents should be providing the basics for their children, but in reality sometimes parents can't. And I agree, why should the kids have to suffer? I'm not against tax, and its in these situations that tax money should be utilized. But the concern I have is; if a system were to be established to feed hungry kids How would it be regulated? Who would qualify? And could such a program be susceptible to fraud?

This isn't a thinly veiled "won't someone think of the children" rant. We've just done our best to help a kid whose support structures have collapsed, but we can't adopt him because we aren't evenly vaguely connected to his whanau. He's gone to live with his Great Aunt, who has diabetes and is in renal failure, and his Nan he was living with died of pneumonia a month ago. He behaves badly, he's been labelled with ADHD, but he is really just a kid who wants someone to tell him what's what. But society would rather chuck him on the scrapheap because of his race and "issues". He has no issues I couldn't sort out or adapt to inside 3 months. He's also the one kid in a classroom of kids who sticks up for my middle son who is a chronic asthamtic and has an unidentified neurological condition that stops him from walking and talking periodically. That kid we can't adopt has a better sense of right and wrong than a John Key-led Society.

Heaven help you New Zealand, Heaven help you.

Poor kid
I don't know the system very well for childcare (CPS or Foster care etc.), but you've probably have looked at everything I imagine. Good on for the little guy though for sticking up for your son. The world is a shit place at times. It reminds me a little bit of when I often had to stand up for my younger brother who has low functioning autism, I used to get beaten up and bullied by both students and teachers alike. Do you spend much time with the kid? Often when I was feeling down as a result of the stuff that was going on at school (failing grades, family turmoil etc.), I would hang out with my uncle; go the the playground or something and eat ice cream. It didn't solve anything, but it least it made my childhood more bearable.

[James Deuce]

-$300/pw = negative income, losing $300 per week. I'm talking about my situation, not what I expect beneficiaries to earn and if you think a family can exist on $300pw you're very, very mistaken.

If the Government did subsidise schools to feed kids, who pays for the schools to develop the infrastructure to feed the kids? You need kitchens, dining areas, dinner "ladies" and so on. The cost isn't just the food, it's production, logistics and personnel costs, as well as administrative overheads. NZ Schools don't typically have anything more than a tuck shop type arrangement or an arrangement with a local cafe or fast food franchise to to provide a once a week lunch order that gets maybe a 10-20% take up from the school kids.

[Matariki]

-$300/pw = negative income, losing $300 per week. I'm talking about my situation, not what I expect beneficiaries to earn and if you think a family can exist on $300pw you're very, very mistaken.

Thank you for clarifying, I'm sorry to hear that you're losing money on a weekly basis.

If the Government did subsidise schools to feed kids, who pays for the schools to develop the infrastructure to feed the kids? You need kitchens, dining areas, dinner "ladies" and so on. The cost isn't just the food, it's production, logistics and personnel costs, as well as administrative overheads. NZ Schools don't typically have anything more than a tuck shop type arrangement or an arrangement with a local cafe or fast food franchise to to provide a once a week lunch order that gets maybe a 10-20% take up from the school kids.

Good points. The schools in that case might have to get involved with a company or companies that make basic ready meals which could be bought to the schools and then distributed amongst the kids who qualify for the meal. The problem though is making the right sort of food that doesn't involve ACC throwing a hissy fit (noodles and soup would probably be out of the question). I'm not sure exactly what the Green Party had in mind in their proposal, but I'll quote what the article says;

Labour leader David Shearer gave his first major policy speech on Sunday, announcing that if it became the government, his party would partner with community and voluntary organisations to provide free food to each of the country's 650 decile 1-3 primary and intermediate schools, with a total of 119,135 pupils.

"I hear people argue that this is the responsibility of parents. We can debate that endlessly but it won't change this reality: tomorrow morning kids will still turn up to school hungry," he said.

[Ocean1]

If the Government did subsidise schools to feed kids, who pays for the schools to develop the infrastructure to feed the kids? You need kitchens, dining areas, dinner "ladies" and so on. The cost isn't just the food, it's production, logistics and personnel costs, as well as administrative overheads.

Yeah, it's not a great idea. Although schools have been doing exactly that unofficially for years, Naenae, for one. What changes when it becomes recognised, funded policy? Stringent standards have to be met, to start with, and there's the growth of all the parasitic secondary service suppliers... And that's the thing, what works in a village, face to face, don't work on a national, industrial scale.

I guess most people have the expectation that within any familly before anything else is spent at all: the kids get fed. If that's not happening a village would know, and know why. Maybe that's what we're seeing here, the failure of national policy to provide what has only ever been managed well at a tribal level.

Or is it a failure? I'm not real familliar with the rules, but I'd like to think that anyone who's failing to meet their life's costs but who's kids are getting fed might have a better claim to further help than the ones who's kids turn up to school hungry. And maybe, if the rules were really shaped to help the kids you'd have a better chance at adopting your boys schoolmate. And if the rules aren't shaped that way then how can a government, as in "not a village" and "not a society" make them that way?

[James Deuce]

Thank you for clarifying, I'm sorry to hear that you're losing money on a weekly basis.

Not now - back then when we were in the crap.

[Akzle]

i heard an interesting thing on some radio the other day about "baby boomer" gereration politiicians, who are scared shitless of the next generation: their forbears made them a nice cushy welfare and help-you-into-a-house-and-live-well kind of government, they got through it, got to the top of the property/political/financial ladder (on the backs of their forbear's taxes) and now they're chopping that shit left right and centre, and raising taxation, fairly well across the board, to pay for a) their wages and b) what meagre service they provide, and all the while turning things to user-pays.

what i still find highly fucken annoying is that SAR, fire service, and parameds (y'know, people that HELP people) are 0% government funded. while their gangland enforcers (police) are 100% government funded.

-$300/pw = negative income, losing $300 per week. I'm talking about my situation, not what I expect beneficiaries to earn and if you think a family can exist on $300pw you're very, very mistaken.

that'd depend on the size of the family and what they expect. i agree it's ceratinly hard to make ends meet if you're not rolling in cash., leta lone have any loose ends or savings.

i've been in a position several times (thanks, women) where i've lost pretty much everything i had (savings, vehicles, guns - the important stuff.) it's actually quite refreshing. one day i realised that i actually didn't need much of it, so now i live without.
i think to date this year i have spent 3000$ more than i've "earned" (according to IRD)

[SPman]

98% of them get off benefits in 3 months.

A fact most people don't want to believe, because it doesn't fit in with the scenario presented by the media and government........

[Akzle]

A fact most people don't want to believe, because it doesn't fit in with the scenario presented by the media and government........

and one that i believe will be rapidly changing for the better, especially with key's election promise of, what, 400 000 (four hundred thousand, say it..) jobs.

o.
wait on.

[James Deuce]

Between Solid Energy and Railways we shed the better part of a thousand jobs today. Don't forget to abuse the people now jobless for being bludgers, stand them down from benefits for 18 weeks and make sure the baleful eye of Paula Benefit cuts their benefit the moment one of their kids skips breakfast.

[Madness]

And it's only monday.