The next person who asserts we need to ‘educate’ the bludgers so well described in Jim’s article, I will strangle.
I see Tamhere is being excoriated for asserting ‘benefits’ should be paid out in kind, not cash. The anti crowd rattle on about abuse of power when a state-dependent is ‘given’ other than the money to spend.
‘What we have to do,’ they crow, ‘is educate the beneficiaries.’
They’ve been crowing that line for years.
Excuse me! Why don’t we go back to naming beneficiaries as beggars in receipt of public largesse. What’s wrong with Tamahere’s concept. We will feed you, house you, keep you warm, and even help you clothe, but will will not give you a cent to waste on booze, drugs or fags.
How many beneficiaries would quickly find a method to get money (like working for example) to buy their booze, drugs and fags?
But then the PC brigade would argue that all which would happen would be a transfer of income from the state to an employer and the money earned would go into booze, drugs and fags.
But would it? Holding down a job requires a bit of focus, regardless of how menial. So we change the employment laws back to the days where the ‘nasty’ employer, he who funds the jobs, gets to say who starts on Monday. ‘You got a hangover, son? Sorry. No work today. You look a bit stoned, son. Sorry, no work today. I told you on Friday, son. You turn up to work in clean clothes or don’t turn up. Sorry son. No work today.’
The employers are the folk who could change the whole game, providing the dickheads agree to limit welfare to provide substance as opposed to money.
But can they? In this environment? Nope.
We need to go back to the ethics of the fifties. In those days a clear social pyramid existed. And I have personal experience of those in the middle of the pyramid, the artisans, who were utterly proud of who and what they were. They weren’t film-stars, lawyers, holders of useless degrees, nor were they welfare dependent. They were proud men and women who knew their place.
But our current government wants to upend the pyramid and demand that the dross rise to the top because it’s their right, and the good fall to the bottom, to support the dross at the top, because it’s their responsibility.
I remember hearing Lange say those fateful words, back in 1985. The words which sunder a civilised society. The words were pure Marxism and exist in Labour polotics of today.
The words are:….
“To each according to need, from each according to ability.”
In other words, the meek have a right to be supported by the great, yet only the great have the responsibility to support the weak. Thus the gravity of the weak drag down the great and we end up with New Zealand society today…..Where the dross are more valued than the providers.
And what has this got us? Those vile parents of the Kahui twins.