Sue Bradford, champion of those who live off of the money of others taken by force. She thinks welfare benefits should be enough to have a satisfactory lifestyle, not a last choice to cover bare necessities whilst people seeks to become independent. According to the NZ Herald she claims beneficiaries face "deepening poverty" when in fact they just don't keep up with the incomes of those who work - funny that - shouldn't welfare be enough for subsistence?
No, Bradford and the Greens think if the economy grows then so should welfare. It shouldn't just be about keeping someone fed, clothed, housed and heated, but maintaining a certain RELATIVE standard of living compared to everyone else, even though it hasn't been earned. That's the difference. The Greens are Marxists who see the welfare state as a means of taking from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor, and so they would cheer on a doubling of benefits.
However they fail to even acknowledge the absolute destitution of ambition, effort or motivation of many on welfare. Take some examples listed by bloggers:
No Minister's tale from Murupara;No, Bradford and the Greens think if the economy grows then so should welfare. It shouldn't just be about keeping someone fed, clothed, housed and heated, but maintaining a certain RELATIVE standard of living compared to everyone else, even though it hasn't been earned. That's the difference. The Greens are Marxists who see the welfare state as a means of taking from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor, and so they would cheer on a doubling of benefits.
However they fail to even acknowledge the absolute destitution of ambition, effort or motivation of many on welfare. Take some examples listed by bloggers:
No Minister's tale from Mangere Bridge;
Oswald Bastable's example of Brits on welfare.
Sue, people who work hard and save are sick of paying for those who treat welfare as a choice, who proudly do nothing. Welfarism has failed, miserably. A radical change is needed, for starters it needs to be time limited and those on welfare should receive no more for having more children.
Ultimately the whole damned thing needs to be abolished, and by the way Sue, then you and all those who care so much can do more by yourself, put your own money where your mouth is. You could do far worse than to listen to Lindsay Mitchell who knows this area only too well.
2 comments:
And lets not forget that it is capitalist investment which turns what were rich people toys X decades ago (cars, microwaves, TVs) into things beneficiaries afford now.
If a benefit is given to allow someone to survive, it follows that it is marked against what is needed to survive - not what other people are earning (irrelevant).
There is much to be said for bringing back the Workhouse!
Post a Comment