- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

What John Key considers 'too big' to fail and 'nice to have'



I love what this Government considers nice to have and too big to fail. AMI turn up with their pockets turned out like Alan Hubbard's long lost broke son for another Corporate bail out and we are told we have to because AMI are 'too big to fail'. I'll tell you what's too big to fail. Our public education system is too big to fail, our public health system is too big to fail, our public services that hold together the community services that give the support our society needs is too big to fail. Why is it always corporate welfare and not social welfare that National always want to help out first?

Whanau, how can the welfare of the least well off be denigrated to the level of 'nice to have' and isn't it interesting what John Key defines as nice to have? $1.7 Billion to Mr Magoo at South Canterbury Finance was 'nice to have', the $30million to the private education industry was 'nice to have'. The $30million to Warners for their manufactured crises at The Hobbit was 'nice to have'. Those 34 luxury BMWs were real bloody 'nice to have', especially with the optional extras like massage seats, separate air conditioning units, high performance speakers and let's not forget the specially built seat heaters to warm up our Politicians bottoms. Those are really nice to have aren't they?

One gets the feeling that this Government's nice-to-have list and the nice-to-have list most NZers would prefer are about as distant as the Pope's 'nice to have' list and Charlie Sheen's 'nice to have list'.

FACEBOOK
TWITTER

3 Comments:

At 12/4/11 10:23 am, Blogger Richard said...

Great post

 
At 12/4/11 10:27 am, Blogger jafapete said...

Now, if only that nice Mr Goff could channel some of this. Q. Is Mediaworks too big to fail, or too nice to have? Or is there another category?

 
At 12/4/11 4:09 pm, Blogger Chris Prudence said...

The basic idea of dialectical materialism is that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while at the same time developing internal contradictions or weaknesses that contribute to its decay.Why is it always corporate welfare and not social welfare that National always want to help out first?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home