This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

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

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new
priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

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

On 2023-06-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Note the switch in action. First we are talking about something that needs fixing and then you get back to warning us of a u-turn by the National party. Distraction, plain and simple.

What is being pointed out is the Labour Government doing yet another u-turn on its baked in promise. So they are not U-turning so much as breaking a contract.

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

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:54:07 AM UTC+12, Tony wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening >backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

Rich is pathological incapable of sticking to a topic. But gets even worse when the topic is exposing yet another failure of his inglorious and dysfunctional Labour party...

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

If Health NZ do this then good by to lots of screening https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/491097/te-whatu-ora-postpones-decisions-on-fate-of-hundreds-of-jobs

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

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 23:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening >>backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >>priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

National have not promised to raise the age for screening, but are
criticising Labour for a realistic short term decision.

And for their attitude to women, think also about this: https://twitter.com/spider_hoof/status/1664371325253865472

What are the chances of National spending more money on breast Cancer screening?

As I said, tax cuts are first for National - and they are promising to
cut spending - I was merely pointing out that National are being
hypocrites - but that's OK for you, isn't it Tony.

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

On 2 Jun 2023 00:08:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2023-06-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new
priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn?

The increase in testing is desirable, but arguable as to whether it
'needs fixing' - this would be an increase in screening, but
interesting that you express it that way - there is no indication that
National would have even made the proposal in the first place, or if
it went ahead whether they would retain it should they ever get into government.

and then you get back to warning us of a u-turn by the National party. Distraction, plain and simple.

What is being pointed out is the Labour Government doing yet another u-turn on its baked in promise. So they are not U-turning so much as breaking a contract.

Why do you use the expression "baked in promise"? As I understand it
they did announce that they would at some stage extend the tests, but
since then we have had a few storms - any government would have had to
review spending plans in light of the sudden need for a huge increase
in spending . . .

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2 Jun 2023 00:08:27 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2023-06-01, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening
backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new
priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn?

The increase in testing is desirable, but arguable as to whether it
'needs fixing' - this would be an increase in screening, but
interesting that you express it that way - there is no indication that >National would have even made the proposal in the first place, or if
it went ahead whether they would retain it should they ever get into >government.

Irrelevant and off topic as usual. This is not about National.

and then you get back to warning us of a u-turn by the National party. >>Distraction, plain and simple.

What is being pointed out is the Labour Government doing yet another u-turn >>on its baked in promise. So they are not U-turning so much as breaking a >>contract.

Why do you use the expression "baked in promise"? As I understand it
they did announce that they would at some stage extend the tests, but
since then we have had a few storms - any government would have had to
review spending plans in light of the sudden need for a huge increase
in spending . . .

It was a promise. A promise is a contract. Period.

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 23:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening >>>backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >>>priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

National have not promised to raise the age for screening, but are >criticising Labour for a realistic short term decision.

And for their attitude to women, think also about this: >https://twitter.com/spider_hoof/status/1664371325253865472

What are the chances of National spending more money on breast Cancer >screening?

As I said, tax cuts are first for National - and they are promising to
cut spending - I was merely pointing out that National are being
hypocrites - but that's OK for you, isn't it Tony.

You are a childish little prick. Your best chance at joy is to be abusive. In fact, that is all you have.
All your silliness above is off topic.
Piss off,

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

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 3:15:47 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 23:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com> >>wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening >>backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >>priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

National have not promised to raise the age for screening, but are criticising Labour for a realistic short term decision.

Bullshit!!! It's just another broken promise from the inglorious and lying Labour party Rich!

And for their attitude to women, think also about this: https://twitter.com/spider_hoof/status/1664371325253865472

Utter garbage so typical of the lying woman hating twerp you are Rich!

What are the chances of National spending more money on breast Cancer screening?

It doesn't matter! Labour made the promise not National. It has obviously slipped what passes for your mind Rich but Labour is currently government till October at least!

As I said, tax cuts are first for National - and they are promising to
cut spending - I was merely pointing out that National are being
hypocrites - but that's OK for you, isn't it Tony.

We're pointing out that Labour aren't just hypocrites but ,like you rich, LYING hypocrites!

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

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

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

On 2023-06-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 23:54:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 15:43:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>wrote:

This stuff actually matters, Dickbot:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/decision-2023-breast-cancer-foundation-gutted-screening-age-won-t-be-raised-despite-government-promise.html

Yes it does - but Labour is rapidly catching up with the screening >>>backload, and you may not have noticed but there are a few other new >>>priorities this year . . .

As for priorities, I wonder if Willis got this one cleared with Luxon
- or are we headed for another U-turn? Remember tax cuts come first
for National . . . >>>https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/06/national-looking-at-improving-access-to-long-term-contraception-nicola-willis-says.html?ref=ves-nextauto

Can you for once stick to the topic?

National have not promised to raise the age for screening, but are criticising Labour for a realistic short term decision.

Labour promised that the age would be raised, they now have renigged on that promise.
Sure as helps to lower the level of trust in the Government.



Diversion ahead.

And for their attitude to women, think also about this: https://twitter.com/spider_hoof/status/1664371325253865472

What are the chances of National spending more money on breast Cancer screening?

As I said, tax cuts are first for National - and they are promising to
cut spending - I was merely pointing out that National are being
hypocrites - but that's OK for you, isn't it Tony.

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

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

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

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:59:55 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

Funny. But currently it's LABOUR running up debt with no thought for the future of your grandkids Rich!

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way as this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Another government may well have done it much better.

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

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 04:30:36 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:59:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

Funny. But currently it's LABOUR running up debt with no thought for the future of your grandkids Rich!

No, John, they are not. They are keeping borrowing less than 30% of
GDP, despite all the problems. That is because as well as the success
in dealing with saving lives during the height of the Covid pandemic,
they also worked well and gave us a better economic result than most
other countries - companies were able to keep paying staff, so
domestic demand kept up, we were able to keep exporting, and increased
profits led to increased tax which led to the government having money
to avoid borrowing like other countries were forced to do. Just look
at the USA - if we had there Covid experience we would have had 14,000
more deaths, and we would have borrowed more like the Republicans did
- to a much greater percent of GDP than we have.

We know that the last National-led government sold off assets, ran up
debt, neglected basic services like health. devoted most road work to
a could of vanity projects and left us with vulnerable transport,
reduced benefits using targeting to exclude people, sold off state
houses, etc, etc - but left the banks and supermarkets making huge
profits through lack of competition . . .

Now National are saying they will cut costs, but refusing to say where
. . .

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

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way as >this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Another government may well have done it much better.

Yet virtually no government around the world did do better. Name a
country with a population of over a million that did do better, Tony.

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

On Saturday, June 3, 2023 at 11:13:12 AM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 04:30:36 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 10:59:55?PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to
flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

Funny. But currently it's LABOUR running up debt with no thought for the future of your grandkids Rich!

No, John, they are not. They are keeping borrowing less than 30% of
GDP, despite all the problems. That is because as well as the success
in dealing with saving lives during the height of the Covid pandemic,
they also worked well and gave us a better economic result than most
other countries - companies were able to keep paying staff, so
domestic demand kept up, we were able to keep exporting, and increased profits led to increased tax which led to the government having money
to avoid borrowing like other countries were forced to do. Just look
at the USA - if we had there Covid experience we would have had 14,000
more deaths, and we would have borrowed more like the Republicans did
- to a much greater percent of GDP than we have.

You're just a left whinge JOKE Rich! When National borrowed less than 30% of GDP you wailed about setting up debt that would have to be paid back by your grandkids. Yet you don't see a problem when your inglorious, spendthrift failure of a government
does it! Hypocrisy writ large along with your lies in defence of them!
I'm still waiting for you to produce a list of the lives supposedly saved by Arderns draconian breaches of NZ's bill of rights which you've never been able to produce. Sure the initial lock down was good. Pity it took Labour two fucking weeks to follow
Blomfields advice!

We know that the last National-led government sold off assets, ran up
debt, neglected basic services like health. devoted most road work to
a could of vanity projects and left us with vulnerable transport,
reduced benefits using targeting to exclude people, sold off state
houses, etc, etc - but left the banks and supermarkets making huge
profits through lack of competition . . .

Funny how you ignore Labours asset sales and failures to improve health despite massive so called financial support to health and other failing govt agencies. But then that convenient memory is so typical of imbecilic Marxist commissars like you!

Now National are saying they will cut costs, but refusing to say where
. . .

Costs DO need to be cut! We need to get rid of Labours $billion spend on consultants they never listen to along with the bureaucratic mess that govt departments become under Labour governments! Labour are fiscially irresponsible as highlighted by the
soaring cost of living, rents , taxes and fees loaded onto the long suffering public by your Marxism practicing Labour shower!

Rich you need to get your head out of your arse and see the damage Labour/Green/Porangi party will continue to inflict on NZ if we're unlucky enough to have them win in October, though with their current stupidity and filthy politics that's looking less
likely!

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to >>>flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way as >>this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful >>thinking.
Another government may well have done it much better.

Yet virtually no government around the world did do better. Name a
country with a population of over a million that did do better, Tony.

No because that is irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing.
You cannot say that another government would not be better - in other words you made an assumption (as I stated), an assumption with no basis for support.

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

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 00:38:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to >>>>flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either >>>>forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is >>>>usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way as >>>this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful >>>thinking.
Another government may well have done it much better.

Yet virtually no government around the world did do better. Name a
country with a population of over a million that did do better, Tony.

No because that is irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing.
You cannot say that another government would not be better - in other words you
made an assumption (as I stated), an assumption with no basis for support.

I did not suggest that another government could not have been better -
I was stating that no other government did do better with the Covid
pandemic. We are facing new challenges this year with serious flood
and storm damage, yet National cannot get past "Tax Cuts!".

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

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 00:38:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to >>>>>flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either >>>>>forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is >>>>>usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way >>>>as
this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful >>>>thinking.
Another government may well have done it much better.

Yet virtually no government around the world did do better. Name a >>>country with a population of over a million that did do better, Tony.

No because that is irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing.
You cannot say that another government would not be better - in other words >>you
made an assumption (as I stated), an assumption with no basis for support.

I did not suggest that another government could not have been better -
I was stating that no other government did do better with the Covid
pandemic. We are facing new challenges this year with serious flood
and storm damage, yet National cannot get past "Tax Cuts!".

This is not about National.
You assumed that this government did as well as any other, that is what fools do. They assume.
Or maybe you are just saying what your masters have told you to say - and thinking what they have told you to think. Yes that is most likely it.
This is not about National it is about Labour who cannot be trusted.

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

On 2023-06-02, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 21:09:02 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 18:50:10 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2023 11:31:30 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:

Remember tax cuts come first for National . . .

And so they should. If only...

Bill.

Given the costs of the response to Covid, and now the response to >>>flooding and storm damage, any government would have had to either
forgo tax cuts at this time, or run up debt. National's choice is
usually to run up debt . . .

That assumes another government would have resonded to Covid the same way as >>this one. A massive assumption and based on nothing more than wishful thinking.
Another government may well have done it much better.

Yet virtually no government around the world did do better.

Define better. Then take it to a new thread. Please.

Name a
country with a population of over a million that did do better, Tony.

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