Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60840	2005-08-14 23:44:00	Who are you gonna vote for?? (Govt Election)	rmcb (164)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
381311	2005-08-27 01:59:00	Anyone, as long as they are not in labour I agree. Why why why do people insist on voting labour? The excuse "the opposition just isn't good enough" doesn't really wash. Have you bothered to look at other party's policies? Besides the fact that Helen Clark is a stone cold, rude, arrogant, hard-nosed *****, there are dozens of reasons why I can't stand labour and their socialist policies. Hate to say it but they will get in again, reasonably confortably too. Too many people have the wool pulled over their eyes far too easily.	manicminer (4219)
381312	2005-08-27 04:17:00	I agree . Why why why do people insist on voting labour? Probably because they believe in what they stand for . . . . Eg, Well funded Health Systems, Good Emphasis on Tertiary education, a good (not stellar but passable) record of government . As well as Progressive, Liberal and well needed policies (Student Loans Scrapped, Civil Unions, Prostitution Reform) . If National gets in then you have 1) The fanatically economically right wing ACT party, or United Future (basically all Tamaki style Christians + Peter Dunne) as coalition partners .	Ash M (46)
381313	2005-08-27 04:39:00	Oh my,I feel quite enlightened . Well Cicero, they say that cynicism is the lowest form of wit !! . . . . . . . . are you saying that you don't believe we have too much debt ? . . . . or don't care ? . . . . . or are not aware ? Misty :illogical	Misty (368)
381314	2005-08-27 05:53:00	Well Cicero, they say that cynicism is the lowest form of wit !! . . . . . . . . are you saying that you don't believe we have too much debt ? . . . . or don't care ? . . . . . or are not aware ? Misty :illogical I don't think so Misty,they may say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit . What has to be remembered,is that it is business that produces the wealth . So it's who lets them get on with producing that wealth,its not this mob,who seem to think they are doing business a favour putting compliance cost and high taxes in the way . So,what we we want is a environment where they can get on with exporting without encumbrance,that in turn will sort out the debt,there is no other way .	Cicero (40)
381315	2005-08-27 06:14:00	I agree. Why why why do people insist on voting labour? The excuse "the opposition just isn't good enough" doesn't really wash. Have you bothered to look at other party's policies? Besides the fact that Helen Clark is a stone cold, rude, arrogant, hard-nosed *****, there are dozens of reasons why I can't stand labour and their socialist policies. Hate to say it but they will get in again, reasonably confortably too. Too many people have the wool pulled over their eyes far too easily. I like her. She doesn't let people push her around. What do you expect a Prime Minister to be like? Mrs Walton? And as for policies, Labour has improved the economy. National seems to get attacks of amnesia going on about stuffups - most of which they themselves implemented.	pctek (84)
381316	2005-08-27 06:23:00	And as for policies, Labour has improved the economy . Labour have had very little to do with the strong economy . Just in the same way that they would proclaim to have very little to do a failing economy . This "look at the strong economy we must be doing a good job" argument doesn't wash with me . It's a convenient smokescreen for implementing their socialist policies that are undermining our society . The economy could just as well be doing better under alternative governments .	manicminer (4219)
381317	2005-08-27 07:25:00	Labour have had very little to do with the strong economy . Just in the same way that they would proclaim to have very little to do a failing economy . This "look at the strong economy we must be doing a good job" argument doesn't wash with me . It's a convenient smokescreen for implementing their socialist policies that are undermining our society . Well said . Unfortunately there are too many people out there who base their vote directly on what each party states is fact rather than doing their own research to see if there are differing opinions . What is happening today is not directly related to the current government . The actions of past governments have a huge influence on todays economy . In the same way, what Labour does today is going to influence our future economy . Over the last few decades New Zealand's GDP growth has been well below the average for OECD countries . Labour really doesn't have any policies that will help change this trend . They are more worried about buying votes rather than setting the country up for future prosperity . At least National's policies will encourage educated New Zealander's to stay in the country and foreign companies to invest more in New Zealand . :thumbs: If National gets in then you have 1) The fanatically economically right wing ACT party, or United Future (basically all Tamaki style Christians + Peter Dunne) as coalition partners . United Future (and I think you are well off in your description of them) will most likely end up a coalition partner regardless of whether National or Labour wins . Here is a good election related post I came across elsewhere: An interesting post I stumbled upon . . . . Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner . The bill for all ten comes to $100 . They decide to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, and it goes like this: * The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing * The fifth paid $1 * The sixth $3 * The seventh $7 * The eighth $12 * The ninth $18 * The tenth man (the richest) paid $59 All 10 are quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the restaurant owner says: "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20 . " So now their dinner for ten only costs $80 . The group still decides to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes . The first four men are unaffected . They will still eat for free . But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realise that $20 divided by six is $3 . 33 . But if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat . The restaurateur suggests reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus: * The fifth man pays nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100 per cent saving) * The sixth pays $2 instead of $3 (33 per cent saving) * The seventh pays $5 instead of $7 (28 per cent saving) * The eighth pays $9 instead of $12 (25 per cent saving) * The ninth pays $14 instead of $18 (22 per cent saving) * The tenth pays $49 instead of $59 (16 per cent saving) Each of the six are better off, and the first four continue to eat for free, as now does the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings . "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man . He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!" "That's right," exclaimed the fifth man . "I only saved a dollar too . It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man . "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison . "We didn't get anything at all . The system exploits the poor!" The nine men then surrounded the tenth and beat him up . The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner . The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill! That is how our tax system works . The people who pay the highest taxes get the most aggregate benefit from a tax reduction because they pay the tax . Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore . There are lots of good restaurants elsewhere . What's wrong with a policy that seeks to provide a lower tax burden and restore incentives for taxpayers to get ahead from their own effort? Surely as a country we have grown out of our tall poppy syndrome and our desire to place everyone on some form of welfare – time will tell . A final point, the rich don't earn $100,000, they earn a lot more and there's nothing in National's package for them!	bob05 (8721)
381318	2005-08-27 08:18:00	At least National's policies will encourage educated New Zealander's to stay in the country and foreign companies to invest more in New Zealand . :thumbs: Blind faith, Bob . Those New Zealander's who need/want more money will always go to Aussie and the States . Same as people from smaller economies or unsafe countries will need/want to come to NZ . Depends whether we want to be unique in some ways or just clones !! Misty :groan:	Misty (368)
381319	2005-08-27 08:21:00	The economy could just as well be doing better under alternative governments. Absolutely. Just look how well the Tongan economy is doing. And a number of African nations...	pctek (84)
381320	2005-08-27 08:27:00	W United Future (and I think you are well off in your description of them) will most likely end up a coalition partner regardless of whether National or Labour wins . Given, that was probably a rash generalisation, especially given that Paul Adams (the main one of them) has left the party to stand independently . But they do still seem to err towards the whole moral decline, family unit is a must kind of BS (excuse my language) that you here from right-wing christian politics .	Ash M (46)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25