1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Government spending INCREASED by the current Government and this is a c

    From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 24 08:27:29 2025
    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/runaway-spending-growth-checked

    This press release illustrates that the current Government does NOT
    have Government spending under control. Claiming that a 2% increase
    is progress over a 10% increase is illusory and not something worthy
    of highlighting unless this is the desperate best they can do.

    There is a de facto admission here: National's claim that trimming the
    fat will reduce spending is not being achieved. The previous Labour Governments substantially increased spending so there should be plenty
    of opportunity to trim back. Get on with it, your chances of
    re-election depend on it.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordon@21:1/5 to Crash on Fri Jan 24 02:20:57 2025
    On 2025-01-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/runaway-spending-growth-checked

    This press release illustrates that the current Government does NOT
    have Government spending under control. Claiming that a 2% increase
    is progress over a 10% increase is illusory and not something worthy
    of highlighting unless this is the desperate best they can do.

    There is a de facto admission here: National's claim that trimming the
    fat will reduce spending is not being achieved. The previous Labour Governments substantially increased spending so there should be plenty
    of opportunity to trim back. Get on with it, your chances of
    re-election depend on it.

    I would argue that getting on with it would ruin National's chances at the
    next election.

    The voters are human and as such are irrational, or at least not rational.
    They only want their world to be going along just fine. Fix the problem by a slash and burn trim and the risk is high that it will affect Jane and John Doe's
    world to the point where votes will be lost.

    That old phrase, spending political capital, applies for all Government decisions. (all parties) This is the fuel of the U-turns.

    In these cases it would be good if the Governments could explain why the aeroplane is limping along the taxiway. (Yes, it was all Labour's fault but what else is there? and what is the revised timetable.

    Also, has the 2% (1.9%) figure been than into account inflation? If so in reality terms the Government has gotten the spending back to what it was without the extra Labour spend.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Crash on Fri Jan 24 03:23:48 2025
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote: >https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/runaway-spending-growth-checked

    This press release illustrates that the current Government does NOT
    have Government spending under control. Claiming that a 2% increase
    is progress over a 10% increase is illusory and not something worthy
    of highlighting unless this is the desperate best they can do.

    There is a de facto admission here: National's claim that trimming the
    fat will reduce spending is not being achieved. The previous Labour >Governments substantially increased spending so there should be plenty
    of opportunity to trim back. Get on with it, your chances of
    re-election depend on it.

    Yes I agree.
    Labour increased the public service workforce by a figure between 15% and 20% depending on who you believe.
    I see no reason to not reduce it commensurately. Covid is over, the extra folk are no longer necessary.
    I hate to see people lose their jobs but we must not be in the business of artificially creating jobs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to Gordon on Sat Jan 25 11:42:35 2025
    On 24 Jan 2025 02:20:57 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2025-01-23, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/runaway-spending-growth-checked

    This press release illustrates that the current Government does NOT
    have Government spending under control. Claiming that a 2% increase
    is progress over a 10% increase is illusory and not something worthy
    of highlighting unless this is the desperate best they can do.

    There is a de facto admission here: National's claim that trimming the
    fat will reduce spending is not being achieved. The previous Labour
    Governments substantially increased spending so there should be plenty
    of opportunity to trim back. Get on with it, your chances of
    re-election depend on it.

    I would argue that getting on with it would ruin National's chances at the >next election.

    The voters are human and as such are irrational, or at least not rational. >They only want their world to be going along just fine. Fix the problem by a >slash and burn trim and the risk is high that it will affect Jane and John Doe's
    world to the point where votes will be lost.

    Then you don't recall the major changes wrought by the 1985 (first)
    Government with Lange as PM, nor the 1990 (first) Government with
    Bolger as PM. Lange's Governments pioneered 'Rogernomics', Bolger's
    Government brought benefit reform. Both were reelected and Bolger got
    a third term. This gives the lie to voters being irrational and
    self-centred, but it takes a gifted leader to earn the respect needed
    to achieve these results.

    I am coming to the conclusion that Luxon lacks political courage and
    therefore does not have the required leadership to transform todays
    Government into the modern equivalent of the outgoing government in
    2017.

    That old phrase, spending political capital, applies for all Government >decisions. (all parties) This is the fuel of the U-turns.

    In these cases it would be good if the Governments could explain why the >aeroplane is limping along the taxiway. (Yes, it was all Labour's fault but >what else is there? and what is the revised timetable.

    Also, has the 2% (1.9%) figure been than into account inflation? If so in >reality terms the Government has gotten the spending back to what it was >without the extra Labour spend.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)