Off Topic

Beneficiary bashing

87 replies · 8,216 views
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sthn.jeff wrote:

2ndBest wrote:
Just like to point out that labour dropped govt debt from almost 34% of GDP in 2000 to 20% in 2008.� you don't do they by going into deficit.

�
How much lower could that have been when the country was going through a period of unprecedented growth when so much government spending through that period was of questionable value?


Also that your only source so far offered is a National Party ummm pre election policy document...?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6547095/Defence-to-stop-forced-civilianisation

I mean here's the laugh- the Nats order cut backs, and then we end up having to pay more to get the same people consulting because there isn't anyone in NZ who can do the job. And we don't want institutional memory in our defence force anyway...when it can take ten years or more to train for specialised positions...




http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6516437/2500-jobs-gone-but-state-service-saves-only-20mmartinb2012-03-12 21:40:14


Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Leggy wrote:
2ndBest wrote:
Just like to point out that labour dropped govt debt from almost 34% of GDP in 2000 to 20% in 2008.� you don't do they by going into deficit.


Perhaps the NZ Labour Gov. had better fiscal policy than their Australian counterparts.
When they got into power in 2007 they inherited a surplus of some 35 billion dollars.By May 2011 it was around 200 billion.


Yeh- they used to be mean to Cullen calling him old mother Hubbard. But then English had to admit that Cullen's saving for a rainy day had been prudent and a really good idea.


Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb wrote:
sthn.jeff wrote:

[QUOTE=2ndBest]
Just like to point out that labour dropped govt debt from almost 34% of GDP in 2000 to 20% in 2008.  you don't do they by going into deficit.

 
How much lower could that have been when the country was going through a period of unprecedented growth when so much government spending through that period was of questionable value?


Also that your only source so far offered is a National Party ummm pre election policy document...?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/6547095/Defence-to-stop-forced-civilianisation

I mean here's the laugh- the Nats order cut backs, and then we end up having to pay more to get the same people consulting because there isn't anyone in NZ who can do the job. And we don't want institutional memory in our defence force anyway...when it can take ten years or more to train for specialised positions...




http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6516437/2500-jobs-gone-but-state-service-saves-only-20m[/QUOTE]
 
How about the miliions upon millions spent on the proliferation of Tertiary institutions and the crap courses many of them provide.
 
How about the millions spent funding "academics" to complete studies of dubious value?
 
How about the rampant growth in numbers on DPB and the fact that 29% of those on DPB add to there brood while on the benefit
Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
"their brood".
 
Clearly the proliferation of tertiary institutions will wasn't enough to encourage your attendance.
 
:-)

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
sthn.jeff wrote:
 How about the miliions upon millions spent on the proliferation of Tertiary institutions and the crap courses many of them provide.[/QUOTE]
EG?
 
 
sthn.jeff wrote:
   How about the millions spent funding "academics" to complete studies of dubious value?
EG?
 
[QUOTE=sthn.jeff]   How about the rampant growth in numbers on DPB and the fact that 29% of those on DPB add to there brood while on the benefit
Last time I checked 97,000 was lower than 108,000.  Seems to be an interesting correlation with the unemployment rate.

 

Domestic Purposes Benefit

1990

94,823

1991

97,000

1992

96,722

1993

96,335

1994

100,256

1995

104,027

1996

108,790

1997

112,289

1998

113,329

1999

109,516

2000

108,939

2001

107,821

2002

108,009

2003

109,295

2004

109,526

2005

106,330

2006

102,331

2007

97,111

2008

97,157

2009

105,182

2010

112,383

2ndBest2012-03-13 08:56:16
Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
well isin't that just up and down

I LOVE LAMP

Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
Last time I checked 97,000 was lower than 108,000. Seems to be an interesting correlation with the unemployment rate.
Surely you aren't trying to claim that DPB rates fall as more jobs become available aitkenmike2012-03-13 10:54:38
Permalink Permalink
about 14 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
sthn.jeff wrote:
�How about the miliions upon millions spent on the proliferation of Tertiary institutions and the crap courses many of them provide.[/QUOTE]
EG?

�

�

[QUOTE=sthn.jeff]�� How about the millions spent funding "academics" to complete studies of dubious value?

EG?



You saying I went to a crap tertiary institution and got a useless qualification?

Probably not too far off the truth to be fair...
Permalink Permalink