Here’s another (Who supported National and what they may have got:

“# Gibber Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

AREINZ said “replace it with a new home buyers grant of around $30,000 and a existing home grant of around $25,000 in order to help people into homes – this should be done before Christmas. This will help counter the 20% deposit problem created by the banks in recent weeks”

Great Idea!!! Lets smuggle Tax Payers money to those developers and vendors who are struggling to sell their over priced properties and developments. Subsidising the Vendors and Developers like that is brilliant. Disguising it as a First Home Owners grant, so the money can be passed to the true beneficiaries, is a great way of ensuring the market stays up. But lets disguise the real purpose. Instead of the “Subsidy to Keep House Prices up for Vendors and Developers”. Lets call it a First Home Owners Grant.!!! That way we can help them into a great big mortgage!!!

Those banks are downright unpatriotic for recognizing that their money might be at risk if they don’t insist on a reasonable deposit in today’s housing market. Lets get the housing bubble going again by directing a stream of tax payer’s money into the housing market. After all, if the deposit is lost due to house prices dropping it will only have been taxpayers money and not the deposit saved by the first home owner.

Sounds good to me. All those tax payers who voted for smaller government will be disappointed. But hey, didn’t New Zealand just elect a socialist big-spending government?

Yes!!! Lets restart the housing bubble with a humungous subsidy.

But is $30,000 enough? How about $50,000? Can I buy a house for my kids and get the subsidy? I’d like that. I hear that savvy people did that in Australia when the “Subsidy to support Vendor & Developer’s House Prices” was introduced.

I’d much rather subsidise developers and existing home owners than just about anything else that tax payers money could be spent on.

And lets try to stop people from looking at the effect the grant had in Australia when it was first introduced. People might start to work out the true beneficiaries are not first home owners.
“

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Maybe this for starters:
“MP Simon Tremain is a former real estate agent from Napier – I believe that given Key has said “no new bureacracy” that the 2007 Real Estate Act will be repealed or postponed as this Act would have seen a new Real Estate Authority set up at an initial cost of many millions and ongoing millions every year to run it. So Tremain may review the situation with this act. All that was really required was a simple review of the old Act with increased fines for indiscretions – REINZ and the REALB can do the job – they just needed more power to penalise Clayton Cosgroves so called “land sharks”.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

James go over to Kiwiblog and ask David Farrar who backs National and what they get for it (Hollow Men).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# James Says:
Hi Greens……By Greens!

have fun flopping about in opposition…..heh!
……………………….
Is this the end of Global Warming, peak oil, sustainability, population, financial shenanigans and Values as issues?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi Greens……By Greens!

Hopefully the new Government produces a top rate spelling programme.

‘BYE James

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi Greens……By Greens!

have fun flopping about in opposition…..heh!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

James

As pointed out on another thread… I was part of a campaign for a school budget in Mineola, New York even longer ago, that exercised that same meme… I know better than to claim that the meme itself is protected under any interpretation of copyright.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

John

If we have a total carrying capacity (sustainable) of 5.7 million and the total of people here or coming here is 5.4 million, I don’t understand how you can claim the place is “uninhabited” .

What prompted this erroneous claim?

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

John Ansell Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am

Why on earth would a virtually uninhabited country like New Zealand want to limit its population growth?
……………….
Obviously a city boy

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

John Ansell:

The Values Party, a forerunner to the Greens, advocated Zero Population Growth as part of its policy platform.

The Greens today consist of ex-Values Party members, many of whom have office-holder positions within the party hierarchy.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the unspoken position for many in the Greens today.

Perhaps we will see this as the Greens’ election slogan for 2011:

“Zero Tolerance for Growth.”

Very apt, because this will explicate both their Population Policy and Economic Policy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Why on earth would a virtually uninhabited country like New Zealand want to limit its population growth?

As far as I can see, we don’t seem in any imminent danger of becoming the China or Java of the South Seas any century soon.

Could it be that the Greens’ optimum human population is zero (plus Green Party members, of course). Would that be, as you say, sustainable?

Please tell me your rationale. I’d like to understand it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greens outrage over ACT spoof itself hypocritical bullshit….they did it first!

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/greens-all-outraged-over-ad#comments

An ad designed by current ACT advertising guru John Ansell back in 1988 was ripped off by the Greens for their “vote for me” ad….well suprise suprise!

Got ya pinkies!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Likewise buddy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

see ya shawn

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

(Correction: I’m not obliged to tickle your fancy.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You’re sounding desperate now. Not getting what you want?

Don’t worry, ask the Nanny State, and she will provide.

And how was that a “win”? I was just looking out for your welfare. Isn’t that what all Greenies want?

For the record, I’ve provided you answer after answer (namely, that parents can find out the information themselves, by exercising their personal responsibility) – but obviously it’s not the answer you expect.

Tough. I’m not obliged you tickle your fancy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

shawn – you played the ‘cannabis card’ – I win!
It would be polite of you to answer my question shawn – your evasion is just a yawn.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Greenfly:

Calm down, and take your meds. Smoke a joint, maybe.

If you guys have your way: By decree from the state.

Sapient:

E-mail me to place an order: shawn.tan@act.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi pingpong:

I have no problem with objective, non-partisan information being conveyed. But I can’t help but wonder how objective an information session about population growth can be, when those disseminating the information have a particular agenda.

Moreover, the term “sustainable global population levels” itself is a loaded term. It’s much like the Left’s criticism of the Norm Withers referendum of 1999 regarding tougher sentencing, or the recent Kiwi Party-initiated referendum on the ‘Anti-Smacking Law’. When you frame the debate according to a predetermined worldview, the results will always be skewed because you define the terms of analysis such that your conclusion fits the hypothesis.

In other words: The Greens don’t like the idea of uncontrolled population growth. It’s unsustainable, they say. Therefore, we must regulate. We must tell people about this concept of what a sustainable global population level ought to be. This will be done through educational programmes and initiatives. Hopefully, parents will reach the right decision, i.e. the decision not to overpopulate the Earth (aka stop having so many kids).

I feel ‘sustainability’ has become a bit of a euphemistic blanket the Greens are beginning to throw over every single policy. It got tiresome. This is one of the reasons I left the Greens.

My “conversion” actually began last year, after revisiting my ethnic roots and values I was brought up with. The nail in the coffin for my belief in the Greens came soon after Sue Bradford blamed the murders in South Auckland on ‘Rogernomics’. How irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

The rationale for my conversion goes deeper: There is a reason why a recent poll showed about 60% of Chinese voters favouring National, 4.1% favouring ACT, and no-one else, including the Greens, registering above 1%. Centre-right politics tend to be more commensurate with Asian values.

I remain a civil libertarian, but I’ve adopted free market politics after realising the folly of economic Marxism (or indeed any system that involves state intervention and regulation). After shedding my misconceptions of capitalism, and understanding how markets truly work, ACT were the only natural home for my newfound beliefs.

But because of my civil libertarian views, I began to regard many of the proposals of the Greens as draconian and authoritarian.

Regulation, whether well-intentioned or not, is still regulation, however you want to dress it. And paternalism does more harm than good.

I don’t doubt the Greens are well-intentioned. What I’ve realised though is that because the Green analysis is based on a particular worldview–one that is, in my opinion, both illogical and utopian–the prescription will always be disastrous.

However, I wish you well too. I’m not sure who you are (I don’t know why lefties/greenies never use their real name on blogs…), but I would be keen to catch up over a drink after the Election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

written in the stars, shawn? scribbled on the footpaths with chalk? carved into the bark of trees? shawn? where?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)