Key “Queasy” About Recommended Welfare Changes- will not implement

The Government’s Welfare Working Group released its report today and recommends extensive changes aimed at removing the embedded entitlement mentality behind the widespread idea that you do not have to work if you choose not to, and if you make that choice, people who do work are obliged to provide you with the means for you to live as well as if you were working.

This expansive growth of this mentality is seen in the actions of young women who choose to have fatherless babies, for this provides them with a meal ticket and income from NZ’s taxpayers that in many cases exceeds the income they would receive if they were in fact working. Leaving Cloward-Piven aside, (for such a strategy seems far beyond the capability of anyone in government or the National party to understand) its not amazing to anyone who can think logically that this is a circumstance that has led to such enormous growth in this particular welfare sector. Its the market at work. You pay people to parasite off others and breed, and widely and loudly advertise your intent to do so through pamphlets and other advertising, and guess what- many will do just that.

There is more than one side to this social trend, and that is thousands of single parent families raising their offspring in fatherless conditions, and producing the psychotic narcissistic maladjusted vandals and graffiti artists shoplifters car thieves and drug addicts who cost us all another fortune by means of so many of them going on to more serious crime and ending up behind bars.

The Working Group recommends actions to stem the flood of free loading and social destruction. But once again, Mr. Popularity won’t do the hard yards. In fact even thinking about it makes him “queasy”. Stuff reports-

Controversial proposals include requiring sole parents to look for a job once their youngest child turns three and harsh new work tests for domestic purposes beneficiaries who have additional children. Under the working group’s proposals, women who had more children when they were already on the benefit would be expected to look for work when the baby was 14-weeks-old – though Prime Minister John Key said that recommendation would be ignored.

”Personally I feel a bit queasy about that. I think that’s a step too far. I think most New Zealanders would think that’s a little on the extreme side.”

Pfffttt… Why is it “on the extreme side”? Because a lame stand for nothing loser like you thinks it is? That’s hardly a worthy substantiation of fact John Key. I’m sick of hearing this socialist loser use “extreme” as an adjective to dismiss every damn sensible idea that hard working productive people, tired of supporting a legion of bludgers and parasites and social wreckers, put forward. IIRC, he used this same word to dismiss the recommendations of the Brash lead 2025 Taskforce. Where is the rationale? Where is the counter argument to this eminently sensible suggestion?

He hasn’t got any of course, all he has is a sad compulsion to be liked, and that’s why he has to go. This lamer has the job of Prime Minister confused with winning the last man standing in a some silly television reality show. He’s never going to do the work that has to be done to return this country to economic and social sanity.

Update- I cannot see any information relating to compulsory drug testing, a requirement that I thought would have been at the top of the list. The Stuff report does say –those with drug and alcohol problems would be subject to the strictest controls if the plans are implemented in full . Does this mean regular drug testing? If anyone has any info, some advice in the comments would be appreciated.

10 thoughts on “Key “Queasy” About Recommended Welfare Changes- will not implement

  1. This lamer has the job of Prime Minister confused with winning the last man standing in a some silly television reality show.

    Sums it all up right there…

    2025 Taskforce
    Savings Working Group
    Tax Working Group
    Welfare Working Group

    All should have been enacted in full as soon as received… Nothing apart from craven politics has halted them…

    Like

  2. Lame is the word for this guy. Such a popularity freak, sad indeed. When will NZ see through the thin veneer to the hollowness beneath? Key sold us out before he was even elected PM, when he backed the anti-smaking bull. For that alone, he deserves to be dumped.

    Like

  3. First of all I do like the recommendations of the working group. They seemed to be serious.
    Secondly there does seem to be a political climate around the world about the need to rein in the welfare state and spending generally. Think the United States and the rise of the tea party. Great Britain is also enacting some spending cuts. Sadly in that nation a lot of them are on defence but no matter. There does seem to be a willingness to tackle expenditure and live within our means.

    I think it is a good sign that this report is being talked about. My assessment is that Paula Bennett is serious about welfare reform.

    I don’t know about John Key? He may be softening up the electorate and getting thoughts going in that direction. I would like to see him adopt all of the recommendations. However, my view is that it would be electoral suicide at this point. Having said that — perhaps he is opening the shutters a little for major reform in the future.

    I would agree that we cannot afford this vast level of welfare dependency either economically or socially. However National is the only party that would tackle this issue, however limply.

    Labour knows that its future is tied to an army of welfare beneficiaries who will always vote for a Labour government, because that’s where their money comes from.

    Like

  4. “Labour knows that its future is tied to an army of welfare beneficiaries who will always vote for a Labour government, because that’s where their money comes from.”
    And so does the National Party.

    Like

  5. They really need to have a stick and carrot approach to this, in that families that consist of a married mother and father are far less of a burden on the tax payer than single mothers and their offspring But there is no incentive for the single mothers to marry when they first become pregnant, because the whole system is geared towards rewarding single parenthood. There should be added benefits only available to the married that would encourage that as something to strive for. Don’t even give those benefits to the defactoes. Such as a tax system that allows income splitting.

    Even beyond that, a recognition from society and government that those that raise families and that commit to lifelong unions are the stable members of society that ought to emulated. Let’s bring back the aversion to those that just shack up together. And get rid of that horrible word “partner” that hides the relationship of the boyfriend or girlfriend or spouse, as if there is some shame involved in a wedding ring. It should be the other way around.

    This free sex experiment that we’ve been playing with over the last few decades is starting to hurt where the elite in society are now noticing – in the pocket. Nevermind all the destroyed lives along the way.

    Like

  6. I agree with those comments Lucia, and I intend to do a post later about Simon Powers recent announcements on the cost and cause of crime and his stubborn refusal to recognise the real reasons for NZ’s situation. He’s talking intervention at an early age. Its all down to family breakdown and the de-moralization of society.

    Like

  7. “my view is that it would be electoral suicide at this point”

    Who fucking cares, at this point? New Zealand is haemorrhaging its wealth, history and culture because too many limp-dick politicians are clamouring to do what is popular rather than what is right.

    To my mind, if John Key said to the public “right, we’ve had these 4 working groups. Their reports are our policy platform for the next term” he would be re-elected with an even bigger majority than in 2008. But he’s too much of a scared little school-girl, thinking the cool kids might not like him. Fucking loser.

    Like

  8. Full report (pdf) here, Recommendation 10 relates to substance abuse:

    The Welfare Working Group recommends that:

    a) either failing or refusing to take an employment related alcohol or drug test be regarded as not complying with the job search obligation, with associated consequences, and that this expectation be clearly communicated;

    b) subject to the Government addressing long-standing issues with the availability of drug and alcohol services (which we recommend be addressed as a matter of urgency) a person who fails or is likely to fail a drug or alcohol test due to drug or alcohol dependence, be offered the option of voluntarily agreeing to drug and alcohol treatment. Refusal to accept this offer would be a failure to meet job search obligations; and

    c) in circumstances where a person’s drug or alcohol dependence is endangering his or her well-being or the well-being of children, management of their welfare payment be put in the hands of a responsible third party, or another form of income management, until the drug or alcohol issue is resolved.

    Like

  9. Thank you kindly for searching that document DDD, and for the reference. I will look through it. I cannot get the clear direction I am looking for from the above paragraphs.

    Such as-

    “Failure to pass a random drug test will result in the immediate withdrawal of welfare payments.”

    Like

  10. I don’t think there’s any recommendation that the government conduct its own drug tests, but it is saying that anybody who fails a test provided by a prospective employer would fail a work test, as well as people who refuse to enter rehabilitation. In addition, if there are children who might be endangered, the WWG recommends that a third party be put in charge of spending the benefits, to make sure that the children are adequately cared for.

    Like

Comments are closed.