Key Government out on its own. No one else to blame!

[mada]

Perhaps she wasn't quite as pathetic as to pretend that govt has any remit, mechanism or reason to mess with the housing market. As for finance companies? What makes you think it's any of govt's or your business to dictate what other people do with their money?

She was as far left as it's possible to get in a democracy and survive an election.

Your response is very simple.

Why does government have a reason to mess with housing? Because we pay billions in accommodation supplements/income related rents every year which gives a subsidy to those who invest in properties. Let alone, the billions wasted through investment and debt that could be put into productive industry.

As for finance, I don't give a toss who invests what and where, you seem to miss the point that I made in which we the TAXPAYER were made to GUARANTEE them and paid out billions for that.

Your last comment if fucking funny to, the implications of it being that John Key is as far RIGHT as its possible to get in a democracy and survive an election, and by yours and others right wing words he's not even that right wing.

[blue rider]

Now show us the revenue from which those govts produced those returns.

Labour blew fucking huge surpluses for years, and when they finally got arseholed National inherited the bad times.

They could have borrowed less, I think they should have. But they tread a fine line between stimulating the economy and committing future taxpayers to loan repayments. Are you qualified to comment on the costs./benefits of any particular point on that continuum? And could you bear the whining from the "oh noes, austerity measures" crowd if they'd borrowed less?

Some may be, again there's a balance to be attempted there, between off shore investment and tax liability. I'd like some changes, there.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00174.htm

and because I don't think that you ever click on a link i will post the article in Full. I will also highlight the name of the person from National that is pissed that Helen Clark and the Government has gauged the NZ Puplic by not cutting tax.

John Key MP
National Party Finance Spokesman

11 October 2006

Huge surplus shows Labour has gouged taxpayers

The greedy Labour-led Government should apologise for gouging New Zealand taxpayers following the announcement of an enormous $11.5 billion surplus, says National Party Finance spokesman John Key.

"New Zealand is now running the second biggest surplus in the developed world. Only Norway runs a bigger surplus.

"This huge surplus shows that every man, woman and child has been overtaxed to the tune of $2,875 each.

"The surplus also confirms yet again that a programme of tax cuts are affordable. National has consistently argued for a programme of measured and affordable tax cuts. Our view hasn't changed.

"The figure also makes a mockery of Michael Cullen's hysterical, scaremongering claims leading up to the election. In fact, today's announcement shows that Dr Cullen grossly misled the public during the election campaign.

"Who are the public going to believe at the next election - a Labour Government which has run nine years of huge surpluses and which miraculously finds an appetite for tax cuts just before an election, or an incoming National Government that's committed to ongoing tax reductions to improve our competitiveness?

"The public will see Labour's cynical move for what it is - too little, too late.

"What Dr Cullen is saying is that it's more important to him as Minister of Finance to sit on a great pile of money. But where's the sense of fairness and equity in that?

"Michael Cullen and Helen Clark should apologise to the public for this blatant gouging of taxpayers."

this is from the very disreputable information source called Forbes

also in full quote so you don't have to actually click

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/11/EXX3.html

One of the few women to become prime minister of New Zealand, Clark, 55, is pushing to grow a resurgent economy alongside neighboring Asian tigers. "We have left behind our sleepy past to become an open and dynamic economy, experiencing among the fastest growth and the lowest unemployment in the developed world," Clark recently said. New Zealand's GDP grew 4.8% in 2004, unemployment is 3.9% and the government has a budget surplus. Clark is also New Zealand's minister for arts, culture and heritage, where she is usually found touting the success of Lord of the Rings trilogy, which was filmed in New Zealand.

this is something the Greens said....just for good measure and balance - ahhh that child poverty thing, still going on about it. Silly greens.

https://home.greens.org.nz/press-rel...-child-benefit


and here we have bill english giving tax cuts

GDP figures confirm need for government’s growth plan

23 December 2008 1 Comment
Gross Domestic Product figures issued this morning confirm the need for the government's robust economic plan to lift New Zealanders' incomes through sustainable medium to long-term growth, Finance Minister Bill English says.

"The economic situation we have inherited calls for decisive action and that's what we are committed to delivering for New Zealanders through a number of initiatives we have underway," Mr English says.

Statistics New Zealand has confirmed that production-based GDP, the broadest measure of economic activity, fell 0.4 per cent in the September year, extending the recession into a third successive quarter.

The figures were not surprising, given the sharply deteriorating global and domestic scenarios set out in the Treasury's December Economic and Fiscal Update (DEFU) last week, Mr English says.

With the global economic outlook remaining of concern, it was now essential that New Zealand's economy was put on a medium to long-term growth footing as quickly as possible.

"Our challenge for 2009 is to put New Zealand in the strongest possible position to take advantage of better economic times when they come internationally. A sustainable plan that brings together coherent, growth-focused policies is long overdue.

"We have already started implementing our economic plan, which includes tax cuts to put more money in New Zealanders' pockets, bringing forward infrastructure spending to support economic growth and extracting better value out of government spending. We will continue that momentum in the New Year."

from here http://www.billenglish.co.nz/authors...w/www/P52.html



so yeah, man what ever, google is your friend

[Akzle]

Listen love, it's this simple: governments don't produce surpluses, industry does. And the more you can do to encourage them the more tax they'll pay.

So any socialist leaning govt, (red flavoured union based or blue flavoured) hyper-focused on where they want to spend money and completely oblivious as to where it comes from is always going to create nothing but poverty all round in the long run.

Want a better standard of living for everyone, including your "poor"? Then get the fuck out of the way and let your industrial democracy do it's job.

All clear?

proven to work!




...since/until the next/last depression...

[mada]

Now show us the revenue from which those govts produced those returns.

Labour blew fucking huge surpluses for years, and when they finally got arseholed National inherited the bad times.

They could have borrowed less, I think they should have. But they tread a fine line between stimulating the economy and committing future taxpayers to loan repayments. Are you qualified to comment on the costs./benefits of any particular point on that continuum? And could you bear the whining from the "oh noes, austerity measures" crowd if they'd borrowed less?

Some may be, again there's a balance to be attempted there, between off shore investment and tax liability. I'd like some changes, there.

You contradict yourself though, the only ones who can do anything for the economy is industry according to your previous post. So by this argument Labour did a good job for 9 years of achieving surpluses and expanding exports. Arguably without the FTA, our exports to China would not be as great so our present financial predicament would be a lot fucking worse.

The stimulating of the economy you talk about - most of this has been contradictory to the free market principles that you expouse, why because Capitalists know they actually would lose a fuckload of money if they had to operate on a free market with competition.

Socialism for the big boy bludgers, and capitalism for the rest of us.

[blue rider]

Your response is very simple.

Why does government have a reason to mess with housing? Because we pay billions in accommodation supplements/income related rents every year which gives a subsidy to those who invest in properties. Let alone, the billions wasted through investment and debt that could be put into productive industry.

As for finance, I don't give a toss who invests what and where, you seem to miss the point that I made in which we the TAXPAYER were made to GUARANTEE them and paid out billions for that.

Your last comment if fucking funny to, the implications of it being that John Key is as far RIGHT as its possible to get in a democracy and survive an election, and by yours and others right wing words he's not even that right wing.

the little ocean one is a wee Ayn Rand Groupie and considers himself to be an island or sum such thing.

He will never get old.
He will never be poor.
He will never loose his job.
He will never have an accident that may cause him to need a Nurse to wipe his arse.
He will never never ever know anyone that might need a nurse for some arse wiping.

His Father and His Mother build the hospital in which he was born. They also grew all the food he ate when he was a depended youngling. His parents on grounds of ideologie of course refused the Union wage they could have earned, or any other benefits of the social welfare state created by Mr. Savage. Also he was homeschooled and then he build the University he went to and paid the Profs and Faculty staff
He will also not apply for any help should he ever need it, Becasue. He. Is. Ocean. One. Damn it.

And that is why he is so effn grumpy all the time, its either that or constipation. I have not yet quite made up my mind.

[husaberg]

Now show us the revenue from which those govts produced those returns.

Labour blew fucking huge surpluses for years, and when they finally got arseholed National inherited the bad times.

They could have borrowed less, I think they should have. But they tread a fine line between stimulating the economy and committing future taxpayers to loan repayments. Are you qualified to comment on the costs./benefits of any particular point on that continuum? And could you bear the whining from the "oh noes, austerity measures" crowd if they'd borrowed less?

Some may be, again there's a balance to be attempted there, between off shore investment and tax liability. I'd like some changes, there.

Revenue lol employment and standard of living, they were good times, of course in your opinion. it was in spite of the government wasn't it.
To say National inherited a problem is in my opinion self serving twaddle, of coarse in your opinion it is still Labours fault.
National are currently borrowing NZ into a huge problem but don't worry, they will sell more silverware for zero return.


If you ask 4 different economists the same question, you will then receive 4 different answers, 5 if one has been to Harvard

[mada]

the little ocean one is a wee Ayn Rand Groupie and considers himself to be an island or sum such thing.

He will never get old.
He will never be poor.
He will never loose his job.
He will never have an accident that may cause him to need a Nurse to wipe his arse.
He will never never ever know anyone that might need a nurse for some arse wiping.

His Father and His Mother build the hospital in which he was born. They also grew all the food he ate when he was a depended youngling. His parents on grounds of ideologie of course refused the Union wage they could have earned, or any other benefits of the social welfare state created by Mr. Savage. Also he was homeschooled and then he build the University he went to and paid the Profs and Faculty staff
He will also not apply for any help should he ever need it, Becasue. He. Is. Ocean. One. Damn it.

And that is why he is so effn grumpy all the time, its either that or constipation. I have not yet quite made up my mind.

hahahhahah That wins the prize of this thread.


The state provides nothing and creates nothing, it has no role in anything in our lives. Industry creates and does everything. Obviously the sex industry created Ocean?!??!

[Ocean1]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0610/S00174.htm

and because I don't think that you ever click on a link i will post the article in Full. I will also highlight the name of the person from National that is pissed that Helen Clark and the Government has gauged the NZ Puplic by not cutting tax.

Yes. You'd already said that.

And he's right, Labour had tax money to burn for fucking years, more than they could easily spend.

So your point is, again?

[blue rider]

the man is on the sauce or he really has just stopped to pretend.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/artic...941&ref=mobile

The Prime Minister has said no directive has been given to the Defence Force from Parliament to prepare troops for deployment to Iraq.

John Key's comment comes after Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee said training had begun on a contingency basis.

Mr Key said he was waiting for information from a scoping team sent to Iraq had advised him.

"The government hasn't given them any instructions at all.

"It would be impossible for them to be training for the exact mission that we might send to Iraq because the Government hasn't had any advice on that."

Mr Key said Mr Brownlee had been clear on the issue yesterday.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newsho...ment-brownlee/

Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee is denying the army's been told to prepare for a deployment to Iraq.

His office says training, including language and cultural tuition has begun should the Government decide to send troops to train the Iraqi Army to fight ISIS.

Mr Brownlee says that's perfectly normal even though a decision hasn't been made.

"All armies train.

"Why do you have an army?

"They don't sit around sunbathing all day, they train for the possibility of being deployed - that's why you have an

but then

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...eployment-Mark

Mark, NZ First's defence spokesman and a former army major, said troops had known as early as last month they were entering pre-deployment training for Iraq, yet Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee denied any decision had been made.

Mark said the Government had been "economic with the truth".

"They've not been open with the public and they're not answering questions with complete honesty," he said.

Mark said sources had told him 150 people had been earmarked for deployment and told they should prepare for deployment between the end of February and the beginning of March.

Phase 1 of the training started on Monday and would continue until December 18.

or maybe this

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/articl...ewsmain%2Cnrhl

4 December 2014
Soldiers training for deployment to Iraq shouldn't anticipate actually going there, Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says.

The Defence Force confirmed on Thursday that pre-deployment training had started.

A spokesman told NZ Newswire the decision had been its own, and no instruction was received from the government.

Speaking in parliament, Mr Brownlee said the training involved "language and culture and various other things".

"There has been no decision on any deployment to the Middle East," he said.

"No soldier should anticipate any deployment at all."

NZ First MP Ron Mark, a former army officer, says up to 150 troops from 1 Battalion Royal New Zealand Infantry are training at Waiouru.

He says they've been told to anticipate deployment at the end of February or early March next year.

Labour's defence spokesman, Phil Goff, also says training has started and believes the government has made a decision to deploy the troops.

"The government is refusing to come clean about pre-deployment training for Iraq because they cannot justify their decision to deploy our troops," he said.

"It's time they fessed up and admitted it."

The government has decided to participate in the coalition that's fighting Islamic State extremists in the Middle East and is deciding in what capacity it should do that.

It has said it won't send troops in a combat role, but an option is for them to join an Australian-led force which would train Iraqi forces.

Four army officers are in Iraq assessing the situation.

Mr Brownlee says he doesn't expect formal advice from them until early next year.

ahhh they finally get to play big dicks in iraq. Cause the evil wicket witch did not let them go the first time around.

[mada]

Revenue lol employment and standard of living, they were good times, of course in your opinion. it was in spite of the government wasn't it.
To say National inherited a problem is in my opinion self serving twaddle, of coarse in your opinion it is still Labours fault.
National are currently borrowing NZ into a huge problem but don't worry, they will sell more silverware for zero return.


If you ask 4 different economists the same question, you will then receive 4 different answers, 5 if one has been to Harvard

The funniest thing about all this shit, is that when Jenny Shipleys government was up shit creek, they pulled out the "we should change the flag" debate in 1999. Must be a good sign of stability for John Key when his government again pulls it out that we should change Brand NZ with a cost tag of $30 million just for two referendums, not even changing all the flags, emblems, etc. etc.

[blue rider]

The funniest thing about all this shit, is that when Jenny Shipleys government was up shit creek, they pulled out the "we should change the flag" debate in 1999. Must be a good sign of stability for John Key when his government again pulls it out that we should change Brand NZ with a cost tag of $30 million just for two referendums, not even changing all the flags, emblems, etc. etc.

some referendums are more equal than other referendums.

[Ocean1]

Your response is very simple.

Why does government have a reason to mess with housing? Because we pay billions in accommodation supplements/income related rents every year which gives a subsidy to those who invest in properties. Let alone, the billions wasted through investment and debt that could be put into productive industry.

As for finance, I don't give a toss who invests what and where, you seem to miss the point that I made in which we the TAXPAYER were made to GUARANTEE them and paid out billions for that.

Your last comment if fucking funny to, the implications of it being that John Key is as far RIGHT as its possible to get in a democracy and survive an election, and by yours and others right wing words he's not even that right wing.

It's a very simple problem. If you didn't fuck with the market by subsidising users then you wouldn't have an artificial market. So don't do it.

And what's the consequences of failing to provide some form of investment guarantee? I don't care either way, just as long as the rules are understood up front.

And the logic of your implication is incorrect. It might be correct if there was a flat tax, as it is buying a majority vote using money take from the minority high earners shapes the form of every government to the socialist end of the spectrum.

[mada]

It's a very simple problem. If you didn't fuck with the market by subsidising users then you wouldn't have an artificial market. So don't do it.

And what's the consequences of failing to provide some form of investment guarantee? I don't care either way, just as long as the rules are understood up front.

And the logic of your implication is incorrect. It might be correct if there was a flat tax, as it is buying a majority vote using money take from the minority high earners shapes the form of every government to the socialist end of the spectrum.

So John Key was right when he said all NZ'ers have a socialist streak... except for yourself obviously.

[Brian d marge]

Rejoice humble peeps of NZ, Dear Leader has found something else to sell

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10836045

hahahahahahahahahaha

classic

[Ocean1]

Revenue lol employment and standard of living, they were good times, of course in your opinion. it was in spite of the government wasn't it.
To say National inherited a problem is in my opinion self serving twaddle, of coarse in your opinion it is still Labours fault.
National are currently borrowing NZ into a huge problem but don't worry, they will sell more silverware for zero return.


If you ask 4 different economists the same question, you will then receive 4 different answers, 5 if one has been to Harvard

You don't really want me to tell you why I think they were good times. Suficient to say I don't think there's much influence temporary govt policy has on economic performance. Saying National inherited a failing economy isn't self serving twaddle, it's a matter of historic fact. Now, any govt taking too much credit or blame for economic good times or bad is self serving twaddle, because they do very little to contribute to them.

My observation was that during a period of almost unprecedented income generated not by govt but by industry and it's employees the Labour govt took the windfall and spent it on the most banal social engineering imaginable is also a matter of historic fact.

Arseholes.

And as I said, I'd rather National borrowed less. But as I also said it's quite possible they know more about that balance than me or you. And what's the total % of assets sold so far dude?