Nicky Hager

[Paul in NZ]

Well its getting juicey now.... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11310819

The question I want answered is how did slater become so chummy with this 'ex' prostitute (who still seems very connected to industry friends)...

Because hes a sleazy scumbag who has zero scruples and is most likely suffering from a mental illness...

People are right in both sides are prob doing this all the time, except just like Nixon they've been dumb enough to keep a record of the antics. Think there's more to come on this saga...

Hes only on ONE side - his own... He would sell his mates for a dollar if it got him internet approval...

[mashman]

Not at all - there used to be a tradition of caring for your fellow man among many conservative supporters - there undoubtedly still is - but it's become drowned out in a wave of... ideological extremism? that seems to cast aside the welfare of the general population in favour of vested interest groups. This is happening to both major parties - it's not an exclusively right thing - the left are becoming more authoritarian right as well - witness UK's "new labour" - more right wing than the old tory party, and the US Democrats - more right than the old republican party.
Party politics could be seen to be a toxic miasma hanging over most "political" actions and beliefs.

The tradition used to be, what does the economy need to do in order to cater for its people... where these days its, what do the people need in order to cater for the economy. Putting the cart before the horse and then wondering in bemusement why the cart is rolling into the distance and we never seem to catch up.

[mashman]

There's a vast gulf between "policing the actions" of supporters and attempting to show a bit of leadership, which they seem incredibly disinclined to try.

Not everyone needs to be led, so I will assume that the greens are letting people make their own minds up based on the policy provided as to whether to vote green or not... and not resort to the bribery tactics of left and right to curry favour with their supporters etc.... By extension I would imagine that a green voter doesn't want to be led, but represented.

I can see why you don't vote green.

[MisterD]

and not resort to the bribery tactics of left and right to curry favour with their supporters etc

Bribery tactics? Like, say, an envy tax on "high earners" to be redistributed to "poor" people?

I can see why you don't vote green.

Yeah, I have a brain, so I understand that while "poverty" is defined as a proportion of the median income, we'll never get rid of it unless we turn this country into a Cambodian-style paradise.

[mashman]

Bribery tactics? Like, say, an envy tax on "high earners" to be redistributed to "poor" people?

Yeah, I have a brain, so I understand that while "poverty" is defined as a proportion of the median income, we'll never get rid of it unless we turn this country into a Cambodian-style paradise.

:rofl@envy... or indeed a tax cut to redistribute the wealth to the "rich" and away from the "poor".

Liar... thought you said you had a brain. We'll never get rid of this where people are seen as revenue generators.

[bluninja]

Bribery tactics? Like, say, an envy tax on "high earners" to be redistributed to "poor" people?



Yeah, I have a brain, so I understand that while "poverty" is defined as a proportion of the median income, we'll never get rid of it unless we turn this country into a Cambodian-style paradise.

So the greens want to increase the tax threshold on anything over $140k to 40%? Wouldn't say it was envy....so after someone reaches $70k they pay 33% on everything and then it jumps 7% more for all the rest. So somebody on $200k would pay a total of $61120 in tax, working out at a total of just over 30% tax on the whole amount, less than a third. Seems reasonable to me. Funnily the conservatives are proposing a tax free threshold so the low income don't pay tax....rather than everyone pays tax, and then you send it back to them in the form of tax credits. What a crazy idea huh?

[MisterD]

Funnily the conservatives are proposing a tax free threshold so the low income don't pay tax....rather than everyone pays tax, and then you send it back to them in the form of tax credits. What a crazy idea huh?

It's their one sensible policy, no tax until you've earnt enough to live on, across the board. It's worked fine in the UK since forever, at least until Gordon Brown invented tax credits as a way of trying to hook the middle class into labour-voting government dependency (and was then gleefully copied by Cullen).

What a great idea, give the most expert organisation at taking money away from people, the job of giving it back and wonder why it's a complete cost-ridden farce.

[MisterD]

:rofl@envy... or indeed a tax cut to redistribute the wealth to the "rich" and away from the "poor".

Tax cuts are not giving people money. It's not the government's money, it's theirs.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yeah, I have a brain, so I understand that while "poverty" is defined as a proportion of the median income, we'll never get rid of it unless we turn this country into a Cambodian-style paradise.

I don't agree with you but I did laugh at this.

[MisterD]

I don't agree with you

Explain how we can ever eradicate poverty defined as <60% of the median income.

**Edit**

Case in point - the number of people in "poverty" went down during the GFC. Not because they were any better off, but simply because the median income dropped.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Explain how we can ever eradicate poverty defined as <60% of the median income.

**Edit**

Case in point - the number of people in "poverty" went down during the GFC. Not because they were any better off, but simply because the median income dropped.

No, I dont wish to engage.

unless you want to get married? We can now you know.

[mashman]

Tax cuts are not giving people money. It's not the government's money, it's theirs.

You bang your head against the wall as if I don't appreciate your position. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it would imply that I have never felt that what I had earned was mine. I did feel that way i.e. I did think that way also once upon a time. I changed my mind as I felt it no longer prudent to treat human beings as a distant second to the financial economy. Yes, ALL human beings.

Tax cuts are the removal of funds that provide a lot of our essential services. I understand that you would like to privatise education, maybe the healthcare system, maybe the roads and all of those other things that you believe shouldn't be the remit of any government. I once thought that way too and still do because that's exactly the one of the economic models that underpins an R.B.E. However, given the economy and the way it stands, I'd rather we did the shit we talked about in committees for 10 years and got on with doing stuff that needs to be done NOW, snigger. The financial economy and an R.B.E. look to have the same end point. However one will accomplish the tax exponentially quicker than the other... that's the R.B.E. btw.

NOW, snigger, engage that brain and see if you can understand MY position... and if you can, then you should have a solid reason other than: human beings just won't do it. They have never been "educated" in regards to an R.B.E., neither have they been asked. I've always been surprised by how quickly people can be turned

[MisterD]

No, I dont wish to engage.

unless you want to get married? We can now you know.

I like rugby, but not that much.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I like rugby, but not that much.

I dont like rugby, I find it tedious, but I do like gay sex.

[Woodman]

I dont like rugby, I find it tedious, but I do like gay sex.

Bloody Soccer players.........