Duncan Garner: Free lunches gives bad parents an out
It gives bad parents an excuse, an out, and what does it say about the Working for Families package that puts $2 billion a year into the pockets of those Kiwis struggling to make ends meet?
Well, if the problem of feeding kids has got so bad, then the money clearly isn’t reaching the kids.
And we’re now going this extra step. Another victory for welfare, but a big failure for our society and another reason why parents can wash their hands of responsibility. And that’s not OK. So, alongside this policy, we need a parenting one, too.
So we have to starve the village to save the village do we Duncs?
Jesus wept, the punitive spite at the soul of us as a people is so petty and vile. Duncs doesn’t seem to appreciate that Ruth Richardson, when she cut the benefit down in the Mother of All Budgets, did so based on rational that the benefit should be set just beneath what people should eat because hungry beneficiaries will be prompted to get work.
National raised that meagre amount to still sit beneath that threshold and labour have been to frightened to lift it.
Because of the deunionised work force which has created such low wage growth, the working classes look at the meagre pittance paid out in welfare with envy and right wing shock jocks stir that envy into a toxic resentment.
Hungry children don’t learn, this isn’t about letting bad parents off the hook you sanctimonious clown, this is about allowing hungry children to gain an education so that they are not doomed to failure by our neoliberal welfare state!!!
When I was running strategy for MANA, I worked hard on pushing the Feed the Kids Bill and not getting it through Parliament because of Peter Fucking Dunne is the greatest regret of my life (although the strategy to remove him from Ohariu in the 2017 was the perfect vengeance), to begrudge feeding a hungry child at school because ‘its the parents responsibility’ is a spiteful bitterness that is beneath contempt.
Who are we as a society when hunger is an acceptable punishment for our most vulnerable on a bullshit point of supposed principle.
Shame on you.
We must be better than Duncan Garner. We must.
If they give beneficaries an increase the money will go straight back into the economy isnt that what we want
Well I would prefer to first democratise food. Choosing who gets to eat and who gets to eat well should not be the domain of Duncan Garner or the people who watch his bullshit show.
Depends what you mean by the economy. Any increase usually means landlords feel free to put up rents.
Garner when was he poor BASTARD!
Why do the conservatives believe all beneficiaries smoke and drink their life away and not feed the kids. I’m sure some do, but most are on struggle street and the Natz club just don’t get it. Ignorant middle NZ again.
Oh dear Martyn as if your vile language makes one iota of difference.
Well yes it increases the level of repugnance for those who have risen above the grey mass of ignorance.
Strange enough i support the idea of feeding school children as I can see the benefits
Maybe you should listen to Phil Collins as he sings ” Another Day in Paradise” !!!
The school children nutrition program should be for all children though, as I believe that I am presently overburdened and overtaxed with respect to the have nots in our society, and it should coincide with a cut in Family benefits for those with children!
On that note i shall leave you just in time before your gutter tripe remarks reach my ears.
Cheers
J
Many of the poor today are in work, but still in poverty. Never mind there is working for families. Working for families is welfare for the employers. It removes the need to pay a living wage and means the employer doesn’t invest to raise productivity. Yes it meets a need support the people who need it but anyone running a business where their staff get WFF is a bludger. Since we like to incentivise bludgers to mend their ways lets introduce a levy (because we don’t like the word tax) which would be on a sliding scale. This levy is charged to employers who’s staff get WFF and at its maximum claws back 100% of WFF. (Just like beneficiaries get a clawback if they earn more) The closer the staff members pay gets to the point where WFF cuts off they get charged a lower levy. The idea is to wean employers off WFF and increase pay.
Comments are closed.