This week's poll asks:
Will the planned welfare reforms be good for the country?
*We certainly don't need or want a constitution which gives preferential treatment to one group, i.e, Maori, over envy one else. Laurence
*Not given the racially based outcome anticipated. Bruce
*This is a no brainer. Kerry
*The reforms may harm some people who in no way deserve it. Prue
*Without doubt! Anything that Ms.Sue Bradford thinks to be shocking must be good for the country. Some months ago a female associate of one of the gangs was asked by a T.V. interviewer to define her role therein. Her reply was quote "All we are - are breeders unquote. Any measure that liberates women from this situation mst benefit them, their children, the country and the planet. Peter
*But more reforms are required. Alex
*The new reforms on welfare would surely be a huge step in the right direction to reduce the entrenched and growing dependency.
(Can't the politicians and other "fat-cats" see that "the light in the tunnel" is the train coming & not the end of the tunnnel.
The current socialist program creating and maintaining ever deepening dependency by ever increasing numbers cannot be sustained.
The reforms suggested are not the end of the road. They are not the final solution, but are a good plan to change for the better. From there it needs to grow and encourage people to get back to working to support the country. It should encourage family units with both "natural" mom-dad parents - which has long been shown to be the overall best environment in which to bring up children.
The penalties for those that wish to sponge on the taxpayers should be harsher!
Taxpayers-Unite!! Do all us taxpayers want to be forced to use our hard earned wages to support those who willingly wish to sponge on us and deliberately not study or work?!?!
Talk of descrimination, talk of unequality, talk of extortion, talk of exploitation!!
Where are OUR basic human rights?
Where are the basic OBLIGATIONS of those who deliberately (or carelessly) get pregnant for sake of not having to work! Not to mention all those able people who CHOOSE to sponge on the taxpayers so they themselves can be lazy and not work.
Where's the justice in all that?!? Walter
*What about the fathers of all these dependent children. Surely a mother should be forced to name the father of her offspring. If not - no benefit. Fathers not contributing to the maintenance of their child should be treated as criminals and fined or jailed. Don
*I think its time that the Govt looked at working for the dole. Winston Peters idea I believe. A bit of self esteem isn't a bad thing! Councils obviously dont have the funds to keep our streets and roadways clean and tidy. Sue
*Long overdue! Barbara
*A brave move which will benefit all. Vivian
*ANY change to welfare would be good for the country (except the changes the Green’s and Labour want) needs to be done slowly though as removing too much welfare at one time will have a significant impact on pokey dens, liquor outlets and drug dealers, not to mention KFC and McDonalds, P.S. I had a car accident a while ago, I didn’t get hurt but I now suffer PTS from time to time, I wonder if I could get an ACC payout and continuing emotional support, and the required legal aid to pay my blood sucking lawyer. John
*The DPB policy is a "lesser-of-two-evils" policy. Splitting mums from kids at age of 1 may have proven connections to anger and personality disorders, but from the commentary appears to be a lot less damaging than the results of entrenched welfare dependancy. The biggest side-effect may be in a generation's time when population decline sets in in our workiing-age population. The DPB has created an artificial stimulation in our birth rate numbers compared to the rest of the developed world. Economically, we may now lose that competitive advantage, but it ought to be worth it if it spares us the problems of cyclical welfare dependancy. Martin
*Any reform is well overdue!! Geoff
*Finally, a step in the right direction. However it will be desirable to have multi political party support to avoid the scenario whereby a changed govenment could revert to something akin to the present status quo for reasons of vote catching or political beliefs. Peter