As much chance of that as a snowball in hell ...Originally Posted by dinosaur
Anarchic Wild Child
As much chance of that as a snowball in hell ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Psyclepath
I'm an Evil Right Winger (because that's by definition, right?) and I'm concerned about children growing up in poverty. However, before we start to argue about what the government should, or shouldn't do to fix the assumed problem, we need to be able to measure it. Otherwise, how do we know if what we're trying, is working?
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Anarchic Wild Child
No. I would not attribute any level of "evil" to a point of view ... good or evil is not for me to judge ...
No - that's a sidestep and an avoidance technique ...and I'm concerned about children growing up in poverty. However, before we start to argue about what the government should, or shouldn't do to fix the assumed problem, we need to be able to measure it. Otherwise, how do we know if what we're trying, is working?
We know there are children going to school hungry and therefore not that well equipped to learn .. we know there are children who are not getting proper health care because their parents can't afford it (and there are parents who fuck up and won't spend the money on anything but drugs and alcohol). We know there are children growing up in substandard housing, cold, damp ...
Why do we need to "quantify" that before we act?
his is not the children's fault .. they all deserve to grow up fed, clothed and housed .. we will know what we try is working because all those things will reduce - there will be fewer children at school hungry, fewer living ion cold and damp houses and fewer with health issue.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Psyclepath
Child poverty is no different from anything else you want to change the amount of, if you can't measure it, how the hell do you know if what you're trying is working?
Poverty in this country is defined as below 60% of the median wage, so if I make a lot of middle class people a lot worse off, I've solved "child poverty" and made no a blind bit of difference to any child currently arriving at school hungry.
Do we put up the dole? Which makes jobs less attractive. Do we create a tax-free earnings threshold to boost low-wage take home pay, which makes getting a job more attractive. Do we provide free shoes to kids that qualify? What are the qualifications?
There's far to much "We must do something, this is something therefore we must do it" in this country already. It's practically the Green Party manifesto, apart from the bits which are "Our policy is to have nice stuff"...I digress.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Just faidin away!
Because that what gets "measured" gets "done"!
Anarchic Wild Child
No .. I don't quite buy that ... we went to the moon without measuring it in that way - we knew we got there when we got there ... I'm no disagreeing with you because I don't get your position enough to understand it to disagree with it ..
Yeah .. but naaa .. I don't agree with that definition of "poverty" .. it's a middle class bullshit definition ..Poverty in this country is defined as below 60% of the median wage, so if I make a lot of middle class people a lot worse off, I've solved "child poverty" and made no a blind bit of difference to any child currently arriving at school hungry.
If the point is to make it so that every child goes to school fed, then we will know when we have succeeded because NO chld will arrive at class hungry .. do we need to know how many hungry children there are now or do we need to know when there are NO MORE hungry children ...
Those are all aimed at the parents - NOT the children. It's only a hope that such measures mean children get feed and live in warm dry houses ... and I would have to admit that would mean some parents have more money for drugs and alcohol and the children would nto get fed.Do we put up the dole? Which makes jobs less attractive. Do we create a tax-free earnings threshold to boost low-wage take home pay, which makes getting a job more attractive.
This one is aimed at the children ... but putting shoes on their feet won't feed them .. The qualification? Turn up to school often enough without being fed ..Do we provide free shoes to kids that qualify? What are the qualifications?
I get where you are coming from - but you are wrong. Quantification is a typical right-wing demand and an active avoidance strategy ...There's far to much "We must do something, this is something therefore we must do it" in this country already. It's practically the Green Party manifesto, apart from the bits which are "Our policy is to have nice stuff"...I digress.
Because that what gets "measured" gets "done"!
I can measure the size of any man's dick ... how does that get anything done (and by word of avoiding an apology, that comment is not an attack on anyone or their dick ...)
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Just faidin away!
75 years of life history suggests to me that if you get to doing the measuring ... it's gonna get done!But hey ... your secret is safe with me!
Psyclepath
I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money. They we'll have the increasing uptake of free breakfasts held up as evidence that moar money needs to be thrown at a problem that we still don't actually know exists.
If we know that a proportion of people really don't have enough money, then we can find ways to help. If we know that actually they're just not very bright and make rubbish choices, then perhaps we're better to increase the available budgeting support services.
It's cliched management speak, but we get cliches because they tend to be truisms, "You can't manage what you don't measure."
We currently have people claiming that poor people are fat because they can't afford to eat healthily - which is also bullshit. Seven Sharp the other night had some booze industry / anti-"health" tax lobbyist that they tried to catch on that - McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Forum whore
Why do some people always come up with this bullshit demonisation of a majority that applies to a small minority, as an excuse to prevaricate, isolate or just ignore problems that don't usually affect them? It's the same as the "increase the minimum wage and there'll be more unemployment" bullshit argument, that has been proven to be bullshit, time and time again, but, every time it's proposed, out come the cliches!.I think the one dead cert of a policy like that, is that the number of children needing to be fed will increase as borderline feckless parents realise there's one less expenditure that needs to get in the way of their booze money. .
Small minded people with small ideas and no research, that they think will affect THEIR pocket, personally! We'll "punish" those who are worse off than us, no matter how badly off we are. Struggling to clothe and feed the kids because the 2 shit pay jobs you managed to get only brings in a smidge more than the unemployment benefit - tough. Suffer you lazy bastard!
Authorities are good at this - divide and rule - governments seem to be based on the assumption the average citizen is greedy and stupid.....and most of them wouldn't be far wrong!
Not lazy - just stupid and, victims of foods with ingredients that have been shown to have an addictive effect, combined with continual advertising that reinforces this.McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy
- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.
Psyclepath
Citation needed.
Increase the cost of something, you end up with less of it. Economics 101. Why is it that lefties are soooo keen to apply taxes to "carbon" on this basis, yet seem to think it won't apply to jobs?
You don't want actual measures of the reality of poverty because it'll force you to abandon the hand-wavy justifications for access to other peoples' money.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Anarchic Wild Child
You are focussing on adult behaviour - there is certainly an issue with adult behaviour ... forget the adults for the moment ... look at the hungry child who is not learning properly at school. Can you do that???n Can you look at the child and not the adult???
Still focussing on the adults here .. look at the CHILD ...If we know that a proportion of people really don't have enough money, then we can find ways to help. If we know that actually they're just not very bright and make rubbish choices, then perhaps we're better to increase the available budgeting support services.
Not asking you to manage anything - I'm asking you to look at the hungry child - How do we feed the hungry child???It's cliched management speak, but we get cliches because they tend to be truisms, "You can't manage what you don't measure."
Sure - I agree ... adult behaviour - six year olds do not make those choices ADULTS do .. can you look at the hungry child and not the adult behaviour???We currently have people claiming that poor people are fat because they can't afford to eat healthily - which is also bullshit. Seven Sharp the other night had some booze industry / anti-"health" tax lobbyist that they tried to catch on that - McD's $34 versus Chicken stir-fry $18.00. People who are fat through too much crap takeaway food aren't poor, they're lazy.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Anarchic Wild Child
Hang about - the cost of milk increased .. did we end up with less of it???
The cost of petrol increased ... did we end up with less of it???
Why does the right pull out arguments like that to suit themselves??? The right needs lower wages so they earn more money (profits) and the workers get screwed ... the jobs still need to be done ... if we have fewer jobs than the rich are earning less money ... because their profits disappear ... because there are less good produced to sell, or fewer services to make a profit from ...
Threatening that there will be less jobs is empty bullshit - cutting jobs cuts production which means lower profits ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Psyclepath
Do you understand the difference between a symptom and a root cause? My kids' school has a "Breakfast club" where weetbix and milk is provided to all FoC (so my boys have a second breakfast on some days) and most parents make a nominal donation to cover the costs of supervision. Band-aids are easy. Green parties promising $millions to fix child poverty is stupid if there's no way of assessing effectiveness.
If we don't address the root cause, we'll have the kids of those kids in exactly the same position in about 14 years time.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
Just faidin away!
Fact: Helen Clark's government forced the minimum wage upon IHC in their workshops ... almost "all" the jobs that firms gave to the workshops have dried up!
Now they sit around in the workshops fiddling about with meaningless activities because they don't have any meaningful jobs to do!
There is fuck all clichι about that so I suspect there is probably some substance to the bullshit that you are complaining about!I do not profess to know!
Anarchic Wild Child
The New Zealand libel laws mean that YOU have to prove statements you make ...
Campbell is himself unable to prove what is in Hagar's book - Hagar may well be able to, but Campbell cannot ... he simply does not have the evidence.
So for John Campbell to repeat what Hagar says opens him up to a libel charge .... which he would not be able to defend ...
TV3s lawyers would have been all over what he said and made sure TV3 was protected ...
The fact that Campbell qualified his statements in this way say more about our libel laws than it does about the truth or falsity of Hagar's book ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks