Sick and tired of Cullen

[Swoop]

pay attention son

the bureaucracy doesn't change when the government changes (well most of it anyway).

Agreed. Unfortunately all the pond-scum lackeys and pencil-dicked sicophants aren't expunged from the circular wind tunnel at the same time as the politicians.

The amount of compliment's that I'm getting on my age around here is surprising. I might have to stay.

[Flatcap]

the cost per person in NZ was about US$1750 per annum while the cost per person in the US was almost double that. No wonder health insurance is so expensive in the US and no wonder more and more companies are opting out of health packages for employees there too

Perhaps, however a key difference in the US is the litigious nature of their society and the absence of "no fault" ACC system. To avoid being sued, Yank doctors are likely to do a raft of unnecessary tests or even treatments, thus pushing up the cost of healthcare per person

[idleidolidyll]

Read just about everything on Marx while doing my degree in Sociology and Psychology.

Read just about everything on Adam Smith while doing my Commerce degree.

Now I prefer to read about the next toy I'm going to buy

oh? why then do your posts seem to fall into the same old propaganda as so many others who think communism and socialism are one and the same and that capitalism is for the good of all?

capitalism is a system run by capitalists for their own benefit but not necessarily that of others
a capitalist is someone who believes that control of the means of production should be in the hands of the few (fellow capitalists of course; they who think they are somehow better than the rest)

some fools think that capitalism is about commerce. of course commerce exists in both extremes as well as across the middle and the idea is pure nonsense

communism is a whole other thing. a system in which the means of production is collectivized and every member of society is supposed to receive relative equality and be part of the decision making process.

Both usually end up as abuse. Power mad leaders become dictators and the systems become authoritarian nightmares. Examples: Pinochet, Reagan, Pol Pot, Monachies of old, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and many more: all categorized more by their authoritarianism than the beginnings of their political parties. They hijacked their support and abused it for their own purposes.

Smart people know that socialism is a better way. A society organised for the good of society as a whole and a mixture of both extremes allowing freedom of expression, personal wealth and continued through the use of democracy (capitalism by nature is anti democratic). Of course capitalsist hate it (socialism) because it takes some of their billions of $$$'s away as well as much of their power and gives it to the huddled masses who they see as undeserving, ignorant and pitiful if not as slaves or servants.
Commies also hate socialism; they see it as a sell out to capitalists, a system that still allows people to become wealthy while others live in drudgery.
socialism rarely ends up in dictatorship while the very definition of capitalism is an oligarchic dictatorship

i guess it's unfair to call Marx the father of communism. In fact he himself said that by the descriptions others gave of it; he wasn't one.
it's fairer to say he was the authority on communism and socialism and well deserved of his recent acknowledgment as the greatest thinker of the millenium (well something to that effect anyway)

of course many are fooled so easily by the self assigned labels people give to their parties: union of soviet socialist republics, democrats, conservatives, socialist etc. All have been used to describe parties and governments that, judged by the definitions rather than the words, didn't stack up.
Sadly that a key component of modern political propaganda; the incorrect use of terminology to distort and attack.

the word terrorism for instance was coined to describe the actions of a state against its people not the actions of individuals or small groups against the government.

if applied correctly, the US is arguably the biggest terrorist on the planet

applied in a foreign context it still is (amerika's illegal attack on iraq and terrorism of the muslim people of the ME for example)

[Hinny]

The obvious is that the Labour Government and their looney mates have deliberately over time perpetuated dependency and a perverse money go round that has a sizable amount squandered in admin costs. MUCH lower taxes and a sizable reduction in the civil service might actually create REAL and productive employment.

You are ignoring the facts.
If you were to check unemployment statistics you would see that with Tory governments unemployment goes up.
Was it John Russell who advocated an unemployment rate of 200,000 as being ideal for N.Z. Then, he said, people would value their jobs and work hard because they knew that there were plenty of other people out there waiting to take their place.
Check History. Go back to the Third Labour govt. Out of office with zero unemployment and record overseas reserves. Ousted on the strength of the charging Cossacks marching all over the country (Paid for by whom?) The message implied the govt. would end up owning everything. Getting rid of all those foreign 'investors' was portrayed as a bad thing. The baby that got thrown out with the bath water was home ownership interest rates of 2 & 3 percent and development finance for Kiwi industry and businesses that would lead to growth in the general populations well-offness.
What did we get instead?
Under Labour minister Jim Bolger the unemployment rocketed to record levels. Business liquidations hit record levels.
Home interest rates hit 25%.
They also squandered all of the country's money and by the time they were finally booted out of office they had left us with a legacy of debt that destroyed the country and impacted hugely on future generations.
It got so bad all foreign exchange dealings were halted as the country faced bankruptcy.
Do you think that any of the current crop of National politicians are of the opinion the Muldoon govt. did anything wrong?

IS the current crop not simply rehashing the same idioms and dogmata of failed administrations of the past?
That surely is why they are called CONSERVATIVES. They resist change even in the face of overwhelming evidence to show that their policies do not work.
This may be why they don't bother to formulate policies that they feel free to divulge. Release one policy to appeal to the general population's greed and you could get elected.
Look how close they came last time. On what basis? On what policies? One.
Tax cuts. The people were going to be able to do with their own money what they wanted. They were going to be able to have private health insurance, private education, drive down their user pays roads and send their mortgage interest payments offshore. And all this on fifty bucks a week.
And who was going to get the biggest tax cuts. Those paying most of course. The same policy that led to the Great stock market crash and the depression of the thirties. The same policy trotted out by George Bush. Slash spending in health and education to do it and at the same time proclaim "no child left behind". It didn't do a lot for their economy did it?
And who was the bright spark that dreamed up the idea that we could borrow the money to pay for those tax cuts?

What about the Employment Contracts Act. Sold to the public as being of great benefit to them as they could negotiate their own contracts. The public saw themselves getting more money, for fewer hours and with more holidays... Tui moment. Where did it get them?
A legacy of that has my daughter working fourteen hour days with a ten minute break and no penalty rates. (No, she doesn't work for me.)

Do you really want a government that will repeat the same old mistakes of the past? Is this the legacy you want to leave the children?
Do we need the anti-nuclear legislation gone by lunchtime? Did our economy collapse when it was introduced as the Nats said it would? Hell no. It took off. The clean green N.Z. image is now incredibly valuable. Organics are the future. (currently)
Do we really need to cosy up to terrorists like those currently inhabiting the American halls of power? Send our children off to provide cannon fodder or kill other humans at the whim of the American masters? For what benefit for us and for what benefit for humanity as a whole?? Don't forget where the current Nats stood on the questions of involvement with the US in their illegal wars. They were all for it. Do you really think that is socially and economically responsible? Remember perhaps that Iraq was our biggest sheep meat buyer and the Nats wanted to go and invade them..... because?

Please sit down and consider your responsibilities to future generations. Take the time to research history and consult with the current crop of candidates. Ask the questions. Are they going to do anything different to what they did in the past? If not, why will it work in the future when it didn't work before? How come if the other side are doing so badly do the statistics tell the exact opposite story? Are they telling Porkies or is the Dept. of Statistics telling porkies. Well I suppose the dept. is full of bureaucrats and, in your eyes it seems, the classic oxymoron civil servants,

Remember:
The growth of a nation can not be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down.

[idleidolidyll]

Perhaps, however a key difference in the US is the litigious nature of their society and the absence of "no fault" ACC system. To avoid being sued, Yank doctors are likely to do a raft of unnecessary tests or even treatments, thus pushing up the cost of healthcare per person

that may be a fact but it wasn't identified in the report as a major factor.

i wish i could remember the name of the report so i could link it

the report compared about 30 countries systems

[devnull]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../28/do2801.xml

[idleidolidyll]

Thanks Hinny; it's a pleasure to see another person with the intelligence and integrity to post facts unobscured by propaganda

trouble is of course the majority of people posting here seem to young to have lived those lessons.

they'll vote national in ignorance and propaganda

[idleidolidyll]

Socialism isn't the answer... it's failed miserably in every country it's been tried

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../28/do2801.xml

Of course it is a disappointing fact for capitalists that the most socialist countries are in fact the greatest successes in the most important statistics: health, welfare of people, happiness, equality etc

Usually Finland, Norway and often New Zealand too (but less and less if Nationa gets its way)

that bastion of capitalism amerikkka fails almost every time to make the top 20

[Flatcap]

oh? why then do your posts seem to fall into the same old propaganda as so many others who think communism and socialism are one and the same and that capitalism is for the good of all?

I just enjoy poking your socialist eyeball with my capitalist stick....


...plus I never said Capitalism was good for all, just that it is good for me...

[idleidolidyll]

I just enjoy poking your socialist eyeball with my capitalist stick....


...plus I never said Capitalism was good for all, just that it is good for me...

indeed, and i enjoy the reverse

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

[Robert Taylor]

You are ignoring the facts.
If you were to check unemployment statistics you would see that with Tory governments unemployment goes up.
Was it John Russell who advocated an unemployment rate of 200,000 as being ideal for N.Z. Then, he said, people would value their jobs and work hard because they knew that there were plenty of other people out there waiting to take their place.
Check History. Go back to the Third Labour govt. Out of office with zero unemployment and record overseas reserves. Ousted on the strength of the charging Cossacks marching all over the country (Paid for by whom?) The message implied the govt. would end up owning everything. Getting rid of all those foreign 'investors' was portrayed as a bad thing. The baby that got thrown out with the bath water was home ownership interest rates of 2 & 3 percent and development finance for Kiwi industry and businesses that would lead to growth in the general populations well-offness.
What did we get instead?
Under Labour minister Jim Bolger the unemployment rocketed to record levels. Business liquidations hit record levels.
Home interest rates hit 25%.
They also squandered all of the country's money and by the time they were finally booted out of office they had left us with a legacy of debt that destroyed the country and impacted hugely on future generations.
It got so bad all foreign exchange dealings were halted as the country faced bankruptcy.
Do you think that any of the current crop of National politicians are of the opinion the Muldoon govt. did anything wrong?

IS the current crop not simply rehashing the same idioms and dogmata of failed administrations of the past?
That surely is why they are called CONSERVATIVES. They resist change even in the face of overwhelming evidence to show that their policies do not work.
This may be why they don't bother to formulate policies that they feel free to divulge. Release one policy to appeal to the general population's greed and you could get elected.
Look how close they came last time. On what basis? On what policies? One.
Tax cuts. The people were going to be able to do with their own money what they wanted. They were going to be able to have private health insurance, private education, drive down their user pays roads and send their mortgage interest payments offshore. And all this on fifty bucks a week.
And who was going to get the biggest tax cuts. Those paying most of course. The same policy that led to the Great stock market crash and the depression of the thirties. The same policy trotted out by George Bush. Slash spending in health and education to do it and at the same time proclaim "no child left behind". It didn't do a lot for their economy did it?
And who was the bright spark that dreamed up the idea that we could borrow the money to pay for those tax cuts?

What about the Employment Contracts Act. Sold to the public as being of great benefit to them as they could negotiate their own contracts. The public saw themselves getting more money, for fewer hours and with more holidays... Tui moment. Where did it get them?
A legacy of that has my daughter working fourteen hour days with a ten minute break and no penalty rates. (No, she doesn't work for me.)

Do you really want a government that will repeat the same old mistakes of the past? Is this the legacy you want to leave the children?
Do we need the anti-nuclear legislation gone by lunchtime? Did our economy collapse when it was introduced as the Nats said it would? Hell no. It took off. The clean green N.Z. image is now incredibly valuable. Organics are the future. (currently)
Do we really need to cosy up to terrorists like those currently inhabiting the American halls of power? Send our children off to provide cannon fodder or kill other humans at the whim of the American masters? For what benefit for us and for what benefit for humanity as a whole?? Don't forget where the current Nats stood on the questions of involvement with the US in their illegal wars. They were all for it. Do you really think that is socially and economically responsible? Remember perhaps that Iraq was our biggest sheep meat buyer and the Nats wanted to go and invade them..... because?

Please sit down and consider your responsibilities to future generations. Take the time to research history and consult with the current crop of candidates. Ask the questions. Are they going to do anything different to what they did in the past? If not, why will it work in the future when it didn't work before? How come if the other side are doing so badly do the statistics tell the exact opposite story? Are they telling Porkies or is the Dept. of Statistics telling porkies. Well I suppose the dept. is full of bureaucrats and, in your eyes it seems, the classic oxymoron civil servants,

Remember:
The growth of a nation can not be achieved by keeping the downtrodden down.

You know thats the trouble with a lot of lefty thinking, they label Conservatives ( I am proudly one ) in such a way that suits them. I am in no way for downtreading people as I believe in a fair deal for everyone but not by dragging everyone down to the same level. I embrace a system that gives people the opportunity to be successful and then applauds that very success, and not by handouts or other forms of electioneering / vote purchasing.
I dont fully agree with the free market and do think capitalism should have checks against it, just as uncontrolled socialism requires.
I will as always be voting National as the lesser of two evils, mindful of the fact that they are too close in policy to this current shonky Government. But they have people that are far more practical and it is a shame that there arent more practical everyday non pc people standing for Parliament like ''Bob the builder'' from Tauranga. I am guessing that the man is leaving in disgust and has no desire to hang in there for another six years to collect a nice cushy taxpayer funded pension.
As an aside I watched Jenny Shipley on television last night and thought heck, that woman has got decorum and has a hell of a lot more in common with ordinary everyday Kiwis than Frankensteins sister.
And I personally would like to see the nuclear legislation axed. A couple of nuclear power stations in remote valleys would solve the nations power shortages at a stroke and have much less unsightly environmental impact than hydro dams and those ghastly wind farms.
Also, gradual reinstatement of our air combat wing to show we have the intent to defend ourselves and to make a contrary statement to a problem so endemic in this country, freeloading off others.
And oh, in 1981 I emigrated to Conservative run England, 3 million unemployed after a disastrous Labour Government that had to go cap in hand to the IMF. I had absolutely no trouble finding a job, to some degree because of work ethic that was so devoid in many of their citizens. Love or her hate her Maggie Thatcher gave that country a good shake rattle and roll and put it in good stead for golden economic weather that Gordon Brown has largely squandered. I also look forward to David Cameron taking control there for the Conservatives. The cleanout has already started with Londons Communist mayor being dumped.
I believe most New Zealanders have a keen sense of fairplay, much more so than in other countries, It doesnt then matter how you are labelled, there are varying viewpoints about how you go about it.

[Robert Taylor]

Of course it is a disappointing fact for capitalists that the most socialist countries are in fact the greatest successes in the most important statistics: health, welfare of people, happiness, equality etc

Usually Finland, Norway and often New Zealand too (but less and less if Nationa gets its way)

that bastion of capitalism amerikkka fails almost every time to make the top 20

Having been to Sweden 7 times I would beg to differ that it is all a land of milk and honey. Thats a subject for another day when I can be bothered arguing with an uncompromising mindset.

[idleidolidyll]

Having been to Sweden 7 times I would beg to differ that it is all a land of milk and honey. Thats a subject for another day when I can be bothered arguing with an uncompromising mindset.

sweden?

who the fuck mentioned sweden?

i posted norway, finland and nz!

i'm sure there's an optometrist near you somewhere that can help

[idleidolidyll]

dear bob

it matters not a rats arse what you say your description of conservatism is; the DEFINITION of conservatism is a belief that it's all good right now or back then and change is scary

in fact the oxford paperback says this (politically):
conservative: disliking or opposed to change, tending to want to maintain existing institutions

your use of the word is in its propagandist definition not its actual definition and therefore your entire argument has just gone whoosh!!! right out the farkin window

[Flatcap]

that's the thing about capitalism; it favours the greedy above the needy

"It" doesn't favour anyone

Individuals are by nature greedy, and in your socialist utopia there will be those who will covet the communal pittance the neighbours have had redistributed to them.