by frog
Any specific predictions for what will be in the budget?
Published in THE GAME by frog on Tue, May 26th, 2009
Tags: general debate
General Debate, 26 May, 2009
Published: May 26, 2009
Comment via Facebook
108 Comments
Hide comments with a score of
or less
Hide comments with a score of or less
Leave a Reply
Please use 
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It’s a Great Lump Foward for the over-weight! Not only are the fast-food outlets doing better-than-ever business during this phase of the recession – now the Government has canned the Obesity Action Coalition! Insightful! Foward thinking! Penguins of the world rejoice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Obesity Action Coalition!
Is that a joke name? Hard to tell what is real and what is parody when it comes to the left.
Does NZ really need yet another inaction committee? What do they cost? What did they achieve? Are they cost effective?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well they’ve ended FUNDING for the OAC, but i would guess that effectively means their end at a national level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m pretty confident BP that if they changed only a few lives, if they were only moderately successful in doing so, they would have saved you and me, the taxpayers, heaps of money in health costs. When it comes to obesity, the cost benefit of fighting it is usually very positive.
Never mind any of the other social and quality of life benefits that such a fight accrues. We know that the world is only dollars and stats for you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Do the cost benefit analysis and present it.
I’m guessing no one has ever heard of them. Besides, if people haven’t got the self-evident truth “burn off more calories than you take in” by now, I’m not sure yet another committee will change matters.
Porkers clearly have too much money for food. So charge them extra for their health care. Create the right incentives to be healthy (lower health costs), or go belly up.
That’s life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does sound like another one of those agencies which isn’t able to measure its own successes or failures…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sadly it looks like Key is going to ask me to pay to insulate other people’s homes.
What a complete waste of my money, I already pay for their upkeep via WFF and no doubt I already pay for their housing as well.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The general trust of the budget will be a reining in non critical government spending such as the OAC.
Expect much more of the same as New Zealand faces up to a reduced tax take.
If the tax take is heading south so will govermnt expenditure. One cannot keep borrowing or printing money without a long term fiscal disaster.
The questions really should be frog,
1. What would people like to see in the budget in order to balance the books?
2. How do we get a higher tax take to keep expenditure at current levels?
3. How would this tax be collected without shutting down productivity?
4. How do we keep people as tax payers not tax recipients?
5′. How do we make tax recipients into tax payers?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sadly BB, the tax money that you are paying for the insulation today will come back to you more than two-fold in savings on health and energy, and you don’t warrant such a good return on investment because you seem to thrive on the suffering of others, even when it comes at your expense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
The “suffering” of others?
How do you work that one out?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Actually there might be one good thing to come of this stupid idea of using tax payer money to insulate the homes of bludgers.
If by insulating the homes of these people means they will face lower power bills then there might be an argument for lowering their benefit payments.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Sadly BB, the tax money that you are paying for the insulation today will come back to you more than two-fold in savings on health and energy
Glad to see some economic pragmatism, Frog. If the cost/benefit equation to the nation makes sense, then we should go for it.
Now, please apply the same logic to government services. If they cost more than the benefits they create, they should be abolished, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, I see there is another ban proposed by National – this time on pseudoephedrine in cold medicines. I’ve done a bit of a tally of things National has banned or has proposed to ban since it has been in office and got to 20. Feel free to add any others you can think of over at g.blog.
Scarily, many of National’s bans have been on democratic participation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad – more ‘dumpers’ than banners, that’s their style – dump this, dump that. They are taking great pleasure in consigning things to the trash, seemily to show how dominant they are. Dumping an agency that seeks to reduce obesity is an good example of their priorities. Dumping the programme for school children to learn safety around dogs is another. The list goes on and on and on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro – wasn’t the ‘lammington on the roof’ incident a good example of how people regard the Act Party and their stiff candidate, John Boscawen! If Rodney had been there, he’d have worn one as well I’m sure. People are finding them unlovely, to put it mildly and who could blame them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
btw Big Bro – you love animals, it’s certain. Is your favourite the ‘scaredy cat’? (that you adore the ‘hobby horse’ has already been established).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Answer Gerrits question, Greenfly.
Where are you going to get the money to pay for groups who cost more than they achieve?
BTW: I see the brown racists are thriving in Auckland:
“In response to a question about what she would do if she wasn’t in politics, the mainly Polynesian group shouted that she would be “on a plane back to Korea” and she could “become the racist relations commissioner”.
She being Melissa Lee….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB we don’t need to pay for other people to insulate their houses, we just need to make such work tax deductible (not capitalized) and to subsidize the purchase price to the tune of the savings to society that insulation will accrue via not needing to build the infrastructure to heat inefficient buildings or hospitalize the sick people that crawl out of them. It’s a sound investment and probably close to fiscally neutral even in the short term.
What we do need to pay directly for is the upgrade of the state housing stock, schools etc. A great investment, to me a far better use of public money than a cycleway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>‘lammington on the roof’ incident
Despicable. The guy should be done for assault.
So if someone dumped a barrel of sump oil over Russel, that would be ok, huh? That would show how people regard the Green Party.
Or do we live in a civilised society where we talk, discuss and sometimes agree to disagree?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gerrit had a question for me Blue? You’re coming over all tense and stroppy – the ulcer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Despicable Indeed! I just thank God it wasn’t a full pavalova Blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam
The state has no business being in the housing market, the govt should sell the lot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What “ulcer”?
Why do you avoid the questions, Greenfly? How do you suggest we fund these “services”?
Is it ok to attack a Green Party member because we don’t agree with them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it to break laws we don’t agree with as a form of personal protest?
Because you can propose all the laws you like, and even pass them if you ever get back in government, but we’ve got Green Party precedent that we don’t have to abide by them.
It all comes down to consistency, Greenfly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – What’s this about insulating the homes of bludgers? Have you seen the package that the Greens are negotiating with the Nats? Do you have the details? Could you send them to me please? I can’t wait until Thursday’s budget Announcement.
As for doing State Houses first, well, the Greens won that budget bid last year, for every single state house. No need to chase that one BB, the Greens have got it under control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green Budget initiatives 2008
Energy Efficient Warm Homes
A total of $53.4 million over five years has been secured for a variety of renovations to make State houses warmer, drier and more energy efficient. In addition to insulating the remaining 21,000 uninsulated houses, the package includes draft-proofing windows and doors, wraps for hot water cylinders, efficient shower heads, lagging of pipes and, if appropriate, new energy efficient home heating. The funding will double the current rate of progress on the insulation scheme and ensure that within five years no state house tenant will live in a cold damp home.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog,
Glad to see some economic pragmatism, Frog. If the cost/benefit equation to the nation makes sense, then we should go for it.
Now, please apply the same logic to government services. If they cost more than the benefits they create, they should be abolished, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for the truly pathetic OAC:
“OAC Executive Director Leigh Sturgiss told the committee the public health workforce uses a tool called the “scream test”. “The likely success of a proposed measure is gauged by the degree to which the affected industries protest. If there is no “scream”, chances are the proposed measure will be ineffective. The tobacco industry and its allies used to scream a lot, and now the fast food industry and its allies are screaming as well,” Ms Sturgiss said.”
That is just mindbloggling incompetence. Here’s a thought – measure cost/benefits instead.
The OAC are a pointless lobby group and an utter waste of taxpayers money. Those who run it may qualify for a job cleaning floors, although I fear that job will present them with a mental challenge that is beyond their reach.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On a related note:
“Veteran salad dodgers Parekura Hormoia and Shane Jones attended the Hikoi but it seems only because they were blocking their way into Queen Street McDonalds.”
You just couldn’t make this stuff up….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah that was gold, looks like Parekura really has given up. Pretty bad look for Labour too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah yes, Parekura, living proof that you can fight anorexia and win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps even he wasn’t listening to the OAC….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And if an advocacy group, paid for by government, clearly can’t even get their message across to someone who was a minister in said government, then I think it’s safe to say we can give them an “F” on their report card….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
*Snort*. He’s in shape. Round is a shape.
Shooting fish in a barrel, but it’s still funny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PB,
Have long ago given up on Greenfly. He is in the same camp as philu for relevance to any discussion.
Unfortunately no one in the Greens can even face to answer the simply equasion on how to balance the books.
Home insulation is a good idea but lets see the funding model.
The model requires upfront cost BEFORE the rewards can be harnessed. So it has to funded from borrowing/printing money. Then those costs have to be returned PLUS interest from the savings made. How will this be achieved?
With four tax payers for every tax benificiary, who will fund the cost?
I really don think that either toad or frog are cabalb of giving an answer on the mst fundamantal economic questions.
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?
Even reallocated money from say motorway infastructure to public transport requires that the money be collected in the first place.
With the deficit to run at 10 billion per annum, our kids , grand kids, great grandkids and great great grand kids, are in for some massive taxation hikes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I really don think that either toad or frog are cabalb of giving an answer on the mst fundamantal economic questions.
Indeed. “The magic money tree” is usually the answer. Either that, or a distant, vacant stare.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it ok to attack a Green Party member because we don’t agree with them?
Of course not Blue, nor would I attack an Act Party candidate, particularly with a dessert, no matter how deserving.
How did you get from there to here , of laws; -”we’ve got Green Party precedent that we don’t have to abide by them” ???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is it official Green party policy to endorse civil disobedience and breaking laws? Did they approve of protesters blocking the bridge?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit, it’s fine to borrow money to fund the insulation programme because its benefit-cost ratio is almost 2:1 (and certainly no lower than 1.75:1), so there are savings over the long term even taking the interest into account.
The other big ticket item in the Green New Deal is state housing. And it is fine to borrow for that to, because the Government acquires an asset that appreciates in value over time.
Sure, the books don’t balance in the years of the borrowing, but longer term they do.
What’s not a good look economically is to borrow to fund tax cuts and/or motorways. Guess who’s going to be doing that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – want to ban civil disobedience do you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not sure you’re even capable of spelling Gerrit, but that’s another issue. The ROI of the insulation programme is 2.3:1 for us ordinary folk, who will get most of the fund and most of the benefit. The ROI for those in lower socio-economic groups is much much higher, as they suffer from medical issues disproportionately. (Which you and I pay for in taxes)
Regardless of how you slice it, the insulation scheme is a money spinner, not a financial drain. Treasury acknowledges this, the Nats acknowledge this, and Labour is still trying to claim it was their idea even though we had to jam it down their throats.
Gerrit, you and BB are just out of touch with reality on this issue. Get over it. Surrender. Read the economic black ink.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It does seem as though Frog is whupping the moustache-chewing Gerrit and his surly off-sider Blue!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, yes, taking health, rather than just energy, into account, frog is right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog,
Not saying it is not a money winner, in fact I said it would be benificial (sp?).
What I’m asking is where the money will come from up front and before the benefits are received.
Borrowing?
Defered (sp?) spending elsewhere?
That is what a budget does frog (teaching grandma to suck eggs), set income versus expenditure.
The expenditure is easy to control, income is not.
What would the greens shadow budget look like?
Spilled my coffe over the keyboard so have a heap of sticky keys. That is no excuse for not previewing and correcting mistakes on my part but, so will take that critisism (sp?) on board!
If 10 billion dollar deficit are OK with the Greens, good for you.
What would you like to see in the budget? I would like to see a much more balanced one where expenditure is trimmed to income.
Me surrender, never untill the ink on the bottom line of the budget is in black.
I guess we wont be seeing that for a few years yet. Maybe you need to talk to your mate Gareth Morgan about what constitutes a balanced budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>want to ban civil disobedience do you?
I want to know if the Green Party supports breaking the law.
I guess riding a motorbike down a commuter rail line would be ok, because people are just “taking back what is theirs”. Or something. So what if some fat cat train riders are disrupted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
Sure it is OK to borrow but any prudent borrow would make sure the expected cashflow from the tax payers is able to meet the repayments plus interest.
Are you sure we have that in place?
Hance my questions originally
1. What would people like to see in the budget in order to balance the books?
2. How do we get a higher tax take to keep expenditure at current levels?
3. How would this tax be collected without shutting down productivity?
4. How do we keep people as tax payers not tax recipients?
5′. How do we make tax recipients into tax payers?
Critically important are 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How the hell can you call state housing an asset Toad?
It can only ever be an asset if you plan on realising that asset at some stage, the Greens do not plan to sell state houses at any stage.
State housing is a huge drain on the tax payer, most state houses are abused by their “tenants” and the tax payer is the one who is left to foot the bill for the endless repairs these dumps require.
The govt would be far better served by selling each and every one of the state houses, take the money that is realised from these sales and pass it on via tax cuts to ALL wage and salary earners.
The market can provide housing for state house tenants, overnight you would save the county a fortune and alleviate the tax burden.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: So what if some fat cat train riders are disrupted.
BP, I think you might find that it would be the motorbike rider who is “disrupted”. Trains don’t stop all that quickly you know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What do you propose we do with those law-breakers, Blue, the thousands who walked and rode over the bridge, many with their children along for the experience – throw them in jail, the cat o’ 9-tails? Or should we recognise their right to protest?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Curious argument, Toad, because neither do really big trucks. Perhaps the big rigs should have ploughed a few cyclists to show ‘em who is boss….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Selling assets to pay tax cuts bro?
Didn’t pick you as that dumb. What happens to the tax rates when the proceeds from the asset sales run out?
State houses have a book value and contribute the the Government’s accounts regardless of whether there is any intention to sell them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Protest is fine. Breaking the law in order to do so, isn’t.
>>What do you propose we do with those law-breakers, Blue,
Charge them. Fine them. The same as if a car driver breaks a law.
Or perhaps we should just ignore all laws on the basis we don’t feel like obeying them. Bring along a few kids, too. They can have a fun day lighting coal fires. Yay!
Taking it to da man! F**k yeah! No way open fire laws! Taking back what’s ours! F**k yeah!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Resorting to insults now Toad?, guess you must be rattled.
Selling “assets” that continue to be a drain on the tax payer is fiscally neutral, I would have thought you might have grasped that.
You can talk about book value all you like however in the real world (where I live) financial institutions tend to look at unrealised assets with a huge grain of salt.
The Nat’s should be looking at every way possible to lower the tax burden for all Kiwi’s, selling dead wood like state housing is a good place to start, so what if the Sharon Salt’s of this world cannot find accommodation somewhere else, nobody I know could give a toss if she and her family of thugs were turfed out on the street.
We need choice and competition, start with housing then move onto health, education, ACC and superannuation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Charge them. Fine them.
And how is the Green Party preventing that from happening Blue? Why aren’t you on the Police Blog with your demands? You seem about to pop a vein. Why so irritable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>with your demands
Why the constant evasion, Greenfly? Do you have an organic carrot wedged somewhere?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Evasion? There was no question in your post (just spurts of theatrical pish!)
BluePeter Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
id think though, that this little gem from you;
Perhaps the big rigs should have ploughed a few cyclists to show ‘em who is boss….
set the tone of the debate nicely. Looking for reasoned discussion are you Blue?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But Greenfly, Toad said: “I think you might find that it would be the motorbike rider who is “disrupted”. Trains don’t stop all that quickly you know.”
Same thing, different words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>There was no question in your post (
Scroll up….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad I agree with you in regard to the housing insulation project but not with your argument for the state houses.
Arguing that its fine to borrow since you will make an unrealized gain on them is moot, you never intend to realize that gain so booking the unrealized gain as some sort of offset profit against the realized expense’s associated with purchasing and maintaining them is being rather deceitfull.
I do also agree with you about borrowing to fund tax cuts.
I am sorry Toad but the NZ government needs to cut spending and that means major cuts to the civil servants in Wellington. We have tried to live beyond our means for the last 10 years and now its time to pay the piper.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – I agree that the nasty, recidivist, criminal Rod Oram should be locked up and never allowed to write for any of our distinguished Fourth Estate ever again fro riding his bike on a highway he paid for…. (Or at least run over by a big rig, along with all the kids on their trikes, eh?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, you’re the only one proposing it……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 – you are right that we have lived beyond our means for the last ten years – but it hasn’t been the government that has been doing that, but individual consumers and private debt. Over the last 10 years government debt has dropped dramatically. thank god for that, or Bill English would have nowhere to borrow on Thursday.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That Father who clipped his child around the ear could have claimed a “Protesting Against Bradford” defense. If it works for bridges….
Laws, eh. Who needs ‘em!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit – If you want to know what I would be spending on, costed and all, go here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21175
It is not a complete shadow budget, but a costed Green Stimulus package.
Don’t worry. When we get access to the Treasury benches everything will be costed before we do it – unlike the current government, which hasn’t bothered to do a costing of it’s Super-City plans, or do any CBA’s of its massive motorway stimulus package, because they know they won’t stand the scrutiny and they’re being driven by ideology, not the financial facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>but it hasn’t been the government that has been doing that
Oh yes it has. That’s why we have deficits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Deficits for the last ten years BP?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, yeah BP. Punching your kid in the face is exactly the same as riding your bike on the bridge on its anniversary day. Yeah right.
You have sunk pretty damn low mate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Still Labour’s lap dog aye Frog, don’t you find it embarrassing after a while?
You can only defend the indefensible for so long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can’t wait for the referendum Frog, Bradford’s bill will be “gone by lunchtime”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Clearly those people should feel the full force of the law – We all know that many of those lawbreakers wore helmets! (hardened, front-line professional protesters wear helmets!) and each and every cyclist was in possession of a chain !! . To my disgust, I saw children amongst the lawbreakers and I recognise human shields when I see them!
I’m standing alonside BluePeter and demanding justice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Contain your eagerness Bro and prepare for bitter dissapointment. Your Neville Key will keep the status quo, you know he will
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well in your view ACT may well be doing that on Budget day, depending on what they’re allowed to say as part of their agreement…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Still Labour’s lap dog aye Frog, don’t you find it embarrassing after a while?
Old lie. Now on -5 points.
You can only defend the indefensible for so long.
We never even try to defend you, parata nui.
Can’t wait for the referendum Frog, Bradford’s bill will be “gone by lunchtime”
In your dreams. I predict less than 50% of the population will even vote. There will be no mandate forcing Key to change his mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Laws, eh. Who needs him!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bro you’re flailing about like a demented baboon, but don’t stop, it’s hilarious to watch!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You and Boscawen could go on tour performing the Cakewalk!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Green New Deal Frog??
So I take it Frog that the green party believes in Keynesian economics??
Can you answer this question.
Where does the government get the money to pay for the new deal?
Either it prints it, borrows it, or taxes it. Now you can’t borrow forever so eventually it will need to either print it or tax it.
Also following the rest of the world to ruin is not a good idea Keynesian economics is not going to get you out of this problem. We borrowed too much money, so how do you propose spending your way out will fix it. Your idea that its okay since it was private debt and we can run up the public debt and everything will be fine is rather childish. The fact NZ has so much private debt means that we will have to reduce private spending in the future which will have a major effect on GDP and tax revenue for the government. Now you will be left with public future debts and future government services which you will have to fund with lower tax revenues.
Their is no evidence to support keynesian spending having a net long term effect on a country. The keynesian spend up in 1933 did not get the USA out of the depression all it led to was inflation and wage freezes and price controls. You might want to try studying the depression, don’t you think it was funny that people were starving in New York city and they were killing animals and burning crops in the fields. Or how about the barber that was fined because he gave someone a haircut below the government set fee for haircuts. The only thing that got the US out of the depression was the destruction of the worlds industrial base at the end of the WWII. The US was the only Industrial nation still standing, giving it a major production advantage.
You can NEVER spend your way out of a debt problem, that path always ends in ruin and serfdom for the people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why’re you shocked?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog,
Had read your proposal in the past and while it is a step in the right direction in addressing some issues, it does not address those fundamental issues of where the money comes from to pay the deficits.
When I see income and expenditure columns in your green deal, I will take it more serious.
Simple accounting really frog.
Something neither the National or Labour governments were able to do so you are not alone.
Question, Where will the land required to build the 6000 new state houses be situated. Is it already government land?
Are your cost inclusive of land, development, infastructure, reticulation, public transport, etc., costs?
That is what I mean by a budget. Show the income receipts and forecasts and the detailed phased expenditure on where it is going, than you will have a shadow budget.
But New Zealand never has had one yet so am hoping that this will be in the next budget.
That is what I want to see in a budget.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The keynesian spend up in 1933 did not get the USA out of the depression all it led to was inflation and wage freezes and price controls”
the US one didn’t work particularly well, because they didn’t spend enough. The New Zealand one, on the other hand, was pretty successful. The final end of the depression in the US was due to military-related spending in preparation for world war 2, which effectively functioned as a keynesian stimulus even though that wasn’t its purpose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Deficits for the last ten years BP?
The fruits of Douglases structural changes. Oh, and Labour overtaxing everyone. And then once the people creating the wealth had been suitably punished, the pie stopped growing.
How curious.
So, either increase productivity, or cut services.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
May 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
>> but it hasn’t been the government that has been doing that
> Oh yes it has. That’s why we have deficits.
I think Frog was rewferring to the 1999-2008 Labour government, which paid off massive amounts of debt. And I recall that at the time you were arguing that government borrowing would be a good thing. Could it be that you’re just trying to take whichever position makes Michael Cullen look bad, regardless of the facts of the matter?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>You have sunk pretty damn low mate.
Meh. When I see activists breaking the law, it just reminds me the disregard they must have for the rule of law. Trouble is, what happens when people disregard the laws you agree with, Frog? What would be the point of making laws? Laws, after all, only work if most people agree to abide by them.
Consistency and leadership by example is what is required, Frog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>government borrowing
I have no problem with borrowing. If we can borrow at 5% and return 10%, borrow away. The problem occurs when we borrow at 5% to achieve 0%. Unsustainable.
Cullen paying down debt was one of the things for which he should be applauded.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP- On the subject of ‘man punches 4yo in face’, “meh”.
Are you serious?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And this years winner of “Most Selective Argument” goes to….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The point is – which I would have thought was obvious, but hey – is that you can’t break the laws you disagree with, and then demand others respect the laws you do agree with.
Feel free to substitute the anti-smacking law for any other law. The argument is the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Could I substitute the ‘anti-smacking law’ for the ‘Repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act’. At least then we’d be talking about something real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You could, but it wouldn’t fool anyone….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Giving it the title you use has fooled a lot of people though Blue. Not in favour of ‘truth in reporting’ then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for award. Have you ever done 60 in a 50 zone? ever J walked?
Have you heard of the colour grey?
If I had more time.. perhaps I’ll get the dial up going later
I just wanted confirmation on your ‘meh’ attitude to ‘man punches 4yo in face’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>‘truth in reporting’
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/12844
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A link is not an answer Blue, it’s a dodge. You’re dodgy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>60 in a 50 zone
Sure, but not deliberately. Never had a speeding ticket in 25 years of driving, actually.
>>Have you heard of the colour grey?
Sure. So you won’t mind when others disregard your anti-smacking law, as an act of protest….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>A link is not an answer Blue,
Yes it is. Your very own Green Party press release described it as an anti-smacking bill.
So don’t get all uppity because people take you at your word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Slippery Blue, slippery!
I’ll ignore that kind of twistyness.
Congratulations to the Greens for the GOOD part of the Budget. Well done Jeanette.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you won’t mind when others disregard your anti-smacking law, as an act of protest….
The Greens aren’t required to police laws are they Blue? You’ve stretched your credibility so far that it’s lost its integrity altogether. Sort of like a spent balloon. Damp and wrinkled. And sad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
FFS greenfly, no one is going to kick you out of the Greens for conceding a point or two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP said”>>Have you heard of the colour grey?
Sure. So you won’t mind when others disregard your anti-smacking law, as an act of protest….”
I am trying to imagine the ‘protest’ you wish me to comment on. If it involves punching 4yolds in face; yes I would mind. Infact if it invovles publicly (as most protests tend to be) humiliating kids, then I think I would mind. I must say that without further details of your proposed protest, I think I would disapprove.
Now can you clarify whether or not you think the man who punched his 4yo should be allowed to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It may be that there are different shades or grey…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
True StephenR – got mesmerized by the sound of my own voice. Must get out more…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>no one is going to kick you out of the Greens for conceding a point or two.
Indeed. Poor old Greenfly has lost and is now thrashing about like a demented insect in a Raid advertisement.
Game, set, match old chap. Bradford should have been more honest, eh. The press release can’t be taken back.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>it involves punching 4yolds in face;
It doesn’t. No one condones such behavior.
We’ll, except in one demographic, where the real problem actually lays, but the left are incapable of confronting it, huh…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
By the looks of that giant garden of yours, you get out plenty!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR – it’s as frosty as this morning, so I’m inside (but I’ll reign in the rhetoric!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have to say I’m disappointed in the home insulation package. There seems to be nothing for those in private rentals, which is the most needed location for a focus on insulation (as those who own the houses don’t pay the power bills, therefore don’t have the incentive to insulate).
I know there’s an existing 55% subsidy but it seems like no landlords are taking that up, more needs to be done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No one condones such behavior, except in one demographic..”
Which group do you fall in? It’s a simple question. Your posts are confusing.
YES or NO. Should the man be allowed to punch his 4yo?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)