Without the feed the kids bill don’t expect a pension

avatr Joe Trinder Mana News editor

Lets-feed-the-kids-Otara-breakfast-courtesy-of-Mana-Party

The National government has been cruelly impoverishing the poorest of New Zealanders while funding rich man’s yacht races. Crushing the feed the kid’s bill was a step to far and using the lame excuse it’s the parents responsibility doesn’t cut it when government is spending so lavishly.

The debate is not about personal responsibility for parents it’s about we have enough money for Wars, Yacht races and Finance companies then we can afford to invest in our greatest resource the next generation. The people paying for your generations pensions are the present day young school children and if we neglect them don’t expect them to be industrious as their education suffered on our watch.

Why should a starving 5 year old child struggling to learn the alphabet in school later in life when they join the workforce pay for your pension? Your generation was offered Kiwi saver it was your parents responsibility to teach you the benefits of saving. If your parents didn’t’ impose kiwi saver on you that’s no different from parents that couldn’t afford school lunches.

Recently the Young Nat’s justified not feeding the kids using the article below on Eric Rush upbringing. Eric Rush upbringing was 50 years ago can’t be compared to the struggles parents are challenged with today. A bottle of milk in the 1970’s cost 25 cents and 1kg Weetbix was $1 dollar.

This was also prior to inflation and the invention of 15% GST  included in a 2 litre bottle of Meadow Fresh Milk that costs  $5.55 and $7 for 1kg Sanitarium Weetbix Biscuits. Just to get breakfast for the kids is $12.55 that’s not including sugar or fruit so kids aren’t eating tasteless soggy Weetbixs. The article below is out of touch with feeding a kid breakfast in the 21st century.

14696_10153127809277622_8764714970637946041_n

Below is optional spending that could have been diverted to feeding the kids

* $130M for Sky City

* $69M for Iraq troop deployment

* $1.5B for South Canterbury Finance bail out

* $30M for Americas cup  yacht race?

* $29M per flag referendum

* $??M upgrade of mass surveillance equipment for the GCSB

* $5M for new fleet BMW’s

* $??M In subsidies to help Statoil to drill for oil

* $30M to help out with Rio Tinto’s new smelter?

  • Ovicula

    Maybe the All Blacks could just wear blue with a big N on it, to reflect how they worship FJK. Go the Kiwis!

  • Jasmine Flower

    Fuckn ass holes!!! The children are our future why can’t they c this???

  • Patrick J. O’Dea

    You forgot the $250 million bail out of Solid Energy to continue frying the planet, (at a loss). Which will further degrade the world our Mokopuna will have to grow up in.

  • Patrick J. O’Dea

    Joe you forgot the $250 million bail out of Solid Energy to continue frying the planet, (at a loss). Which will further degrade the world these children will have to grow up in.

  • Patrick J. O’Dea

    You also forgot the eye watering amount of subsidies that the government will be giviing to private sector landlords,and social housing providers.

    Currently Housing New Zealand returns to the government, in profit, $200 million every year.

    With the removal of State Housing the government say, those on low incomes, with the help of government Accomodation Supplement, will be able to find suitable replacement accomodation in the already overheated private sector housing market.
    Possibly.
    Well at least in the short term.
    Replacing State Housing with the Accomodation Supplement, will within two years, see the annual $200 million return to the taxpayer, turn into an annual $200 million deficit.
    Put together this represents a $400 million drop in government accounts, that will have to be made up somewhere else.
    Looking at it logically the upfront, $200 million deficit is unlikely to stay at this figure.
    As the subsidy continues to prop up high private sector rents, the cost to the taxpayer will eventually become unbearable and will then be the target of government cuts.
    The inevitable result will be of third world standards of homelessness and housing stress leading to even greater childhood poverty and hunger.

  • Patrick J. O’Dea

    some other stuff the government of the rich by the rich for the rich would rather spend our money on.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1072816479398406&set=a.199076150105781.59016.100000101919867&type=1&theater

  • Karen Haag

    I had my kids in 73 & 74 – milk was 4c a pint (ml). It remained that way for most of the 70’s due in part to Muldoon’s price freeze. However, it is a little disingenuous to say things were easier then. Wages and benefits were a lot lower too. Every generation has it’s challenges, but right now the biggest challenge is the mind set of this government and the people who voted for them.

  • Whip Albright

    “This was also prior to inflation and the invention of 15% GST included in a 2 litre bottle of Meadow Fresh Milk that costs $5.55 and $7 for 1kg Sanitarium Weetbix Biscuits. Just to get breakfast for the kids is $12.55 that’s not including sugar or fruit so kids aren’t eating tasteless soggy Weetbixs.”

    -It should be noted that its around $12.55 a week, I don’t know any child that eats 1kg of ‘weetbixs’ in one sitting. $12.55 a week is less than an hours work on minimum wage. Are you saying that people cannot afford this? This ain’t Mexico mate.

    -If a parent is irresponsible to the point that they cannot save one hours work to feed their child then child protective services needs to be looking at these people as they’re obviously not fit to raise children.

    -If you’re financially insecure an irresponsible please wear a condom.

  • El Jorge

    3 things
    A) if the parents can’t feed their kids and relies on the state to pick up the tab the Kids should be taken off the parents and given to the state. Not feeding your kids is child abuse
    B) who feeds these kids in the school holidays?
    C) only a fool relies on the government to provide for their retirement.