well it would seem even politicians are human

how the nz government assessed for benefits 20 years ago is not reflective of what happens today .. despite changes ... the Welfare system remains very vulnerable to fraud .

very true because of bureaucrats and liberal policies.

I've learned over the years to look into what you might call the "backstage" part of these kinds of myths, claims, and arguments.

A lot of what I've seen is, that just as in other areas of human interaction (dating and mate-hunting especially), lots of people CLAIM to believe all sorts of things, not because they actually do, but rather because they come to think that if they CLAIM to believe thus and such, that they will be able to get whatever it is that they ACTUALLY want.

That means, for example, that a LOT of the people who claim to believe that all forms of government organized assistance are bad for a society (encourage laziness and so on), actually don't think that at all.

What they do think, is that they want more money in their OWN pockets.

And they have heard from certain other groups that if they all pretend to think that immigrants, or "freeloaders" (or some OTHER subgroup they all think they aren't a part of) are the reason that they aren't getting that money, that they will then be able to get it.

That's it. They don't actually care at all, whether or not there is any factual or logical support for these claims, they just want the money.

And interestingly, the people who are most vehement about insisting that "freeloaders" are the cause of all their lack of money, are that vehement precisely because they really don't believe it.

The vehemence, and the blind allegiance to their "allies," comes directly from their belief that if they can just all stick by the lie together, they will finally GET THAT MONEY.

life is a timeline ..

If you are sporting fine jewerly,

.. it doesnt mean your assistance got it, it could have been from someone else or from while you WERE Working, assistance being a temporary assistance UNTIL one has sufficient other income.

a big screen TV, another expense that could or could not have been obtained AFTER one needed the assistance

4 phones with service plans, I dont really get into cell phones, but I know many use it instead of land lines now ...

eating steak, ... are we talking once a month or every day? because steak is a food item on a list of options available for eating

twinkies and going to the gym. ... twinkies are 50 cents and gym memberships can be as low a 30 bucks a month, or one buck a day

If you have 3 cars and one job, spend your days sleeping and your nights partying ... I agree 3 cars and one job, if they are OWNED, is nonsense. If they are being financed from when one could afford it, its a different story since it makes little since to still be paying on something you can not use.

and your children dress in rag .. those are exactly the kids needing help, of course many would complain if they dressed in nice clothes that they shouldnt need assistance too... cant win for losing.


like I said, I dont presume to judge or know any other persons financial situation.... but to each their own.

What .....no asset testing then before issuing a benefit .. wow .. how humanitarian of the government

and yet fraud exists, yes fraud exists in every industry but we are not talking about other industries are we?





nobody is saying that on this thread, stick to whats been said.

bottom line if one has three kids and makes 1000 a month, whether they are paying 200 for rent or 1000 for rent, they need some help. That is where benefits come in.

I wonder if anyone really believes that if public assistance programs were to dissappear, there would be any significant increase in money in their pockets.
Isn't it more likely that there would be some other "worthy" place to use that tax revenue?
"Oh, we did away with public assistance but you still have to pay the same taxes because that money is now going towards this or that or some other thing."
I mean something has to pay for all the policing that will be needed as people starving to death and living on the streets start TAKING what they need.

what has been said, basically

if people dont have the character to pick up their kid(s) and move to another state, even though very few places will RENT to someone who isnt already employed and often require them to make at least 2.5 times the rent to move in .... they just dont have character.

if people are not at work every moment or doing chores around the house, and they go out to a protest, it is their fault if someone runs them over because they could have been safe had they just been spending those moments in something 'productive'

Black women could get ahead if they had the character to not feel entitled to anything

people on welfare should live with poor spirit that obsesses on nothing but being poor and getting out of poverty, without any recreation, snacks, or cell phones or jewelry ...etc


and those things bother no one apparantly, so lets instead keep carrying on about all the welfare stereotypes we can think up ...

First, I never said assistance paid for anything.
BUT, when I finally found myself needing assistance I had already sold off and removed all unnecessary luxuries from my life.
I didn't have a bank account, my piggy was long since smashed. My cupboards were already bare. Assistance was my LAST resort. I liquidated all my assets prior to asking for help. This is because I didn't WANT to ask for help. It was embarrassing but I had to do it or die.

So, yeah, sell that gold watch, big screen TV, turn off your satellite service and get yourself a flip phone pay as you go. BEFORE you ask for help.

If your job doesn't pay well enough to afford your lifestyle, change jobs or change your lifestyle. Its wrong to use assistance to supplement your income so you can maintain a lifestyle your job can't afford.
There should be a limit to assistance duration and number of times you can get it. If you constantly need it, what you need more is budget counseling and a reality check. Learn how to live within your means.

got it, if you have next to nothing, you deserve to make sure you actually HAVE absolutely nothing, before you get any help ...

...perhaps for now .. but policy is changing . More onus will be placed on the parent/s to take responsibility . For example once children reach the age of five .. a solo parent is expected to start earning again and reduce the amount of government assistance they need..

as long as the jobs and pay are there that assist them to do that ...

Id like an initiative that requires DNA testing of all POTENTIAL fathers when a child is born, and winner gets to support their child

men would be more careful bringing kids in the world that the women get to take all the gruff over trying to support AND RAISE while they move along overlooked nearly completely for their responsibility or their part ...

I think he would weep at their dishonesty and deceit

I had 4 kids while in active duty service. I made plenty of money to afford my family in the military.
I didn't stay in the military tho.
I lived in constant struggle, on and off assistance for years trying to live in a region that had low pay and poor benefits.
However, when I moved to a place that offered good pay and benefits I hadn't changed my family size. Our needs didn't change, the environment where we lived changed. We thrived without assistance. I did the same work, bought the same things, lived in better housing, better schools and better infrastructure.
As Sam Kinison would say "Move to where the food is" and that is exactly what I did.

good for you Tom... good for you.

but others of us cant even get a place to rent UNLESS We are already working so MOVING to 'find' work doesnt work

and even working doesnt necessarily work unless the income meets the requirements for the rental agreement (most are at least 2.5 times the rent)

Really? I didn't HAVE next to nothing. I liquidated quite a bit and it worked for quite a long time till my assets finally depleted.
I didn't lose my job and say oh, lets sell everything and go on welfare.
It was a slow process of life that was resulting in diminishing returns and I was not wise enough to know I needed to change and it slowly got away from me. During my 35 year working life I had never been out of work more than a month.

okay, so selling the few things a person has to their name may not be the answer for EVERYONE,,, it was just your perogative. I misunderstood. Apologies.

Tom , there is so much waste in public assistance starting with the bureaucrats

There is so much ineptness and fraud it isn't funny

I think the government should eliminate all corporate subsidies too

They need to eliminate a lot of programs that are useless

This is true and common in many cities and large towns.
I know its hard to find affordable housing (even by myself).
There are programs available that will assist in getting relocated to a better area.
I live in a Habitat for Humanity duplex unit for handicap. While I am not handicap, I am disabled and that qualified me to gain access. If I never went to HFH and asked I would likely be living in a dump. I pay full rent.
$550 @mo for a 2 bbrm. Its new construction post Katrina so it is cheap on utilities. It came with all flouresent and led lights, washer, dryer, stove and fridge.
I qualified fro 1st month rent free so I only needed the deposit $550 to move in. I was the first tennant. There was 4 other units in the complex empty at that time.
I spent 1.5 months looking at places while living in a motel. Nothing was viable and I almost gave up and moved back to where I came from then I decided to check 'other' options.

What I'm trying to say is that we all try to look for the easy out. I know, I lived that way a long time. It was easier to just throw my hands up and say fk it. I assure you, determination goes a long way.