Lorde gives $20,000 to feed hungry kids

Forums › Off topic › Lorde gives $20,000 to feed hungry kids

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9

4232 posts

Uber Geek

#1583324 30-Jun-2016 13:38

MikeB4:
vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

Circumstances change. When we were expecting our first child we had two incomes our own home etc etc. Six months after our child was born the disease I have hit me, two months later no jobs, and we were forced through circumstance to sell our home car etc. Some would say we shouldn't have kids. Fast forward a few years i went into remission and able to work, by a home and general luxuries, that lasted 25 years. But again I flared in a wheel chair and unable to work so I took medical retirement. Again some would say that was our fault.

Luckily my wife has a very good job and we don't need an income from me yet I still get attitudes about that.

So let's not generalise and make judgements unless one knows all the circumstances.

i understand that things dont work out the way they were planned, but i bet your kids never went hungry or without the basics of clothes and shelter, im talking about the people who were struggling to provide the basics for themselves and keep having children for no reason other that they can. It almost should be classed as child abuse if you bring a child into this world with no way to care and provide for it.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1583326 30-Jun-2016 13:43

MikeB4:
dickytim:

The welfare system in general needs a shake up. I agree that the government should take the responsibility, however the parents need to be educate around budgeting etc. too.

Maybe cash is not the answer to welfare, there is too much discretion on how to spend it, I have always liked the idea of the government paying the rent, power etc. then providing a food stamp/ food only debit card, then maybe a smaller amount of discretionary money for things that cannot be predicted for. The welfare system (benefit rather than sickness benefit) needs to not be seen as a lifestyle choice, it is not a pay cheque and should not be seen as one.

What I have said above would not disadvantage genuine recipients as their needs are met while they are looking for work.

There are always plenty of jobs out there for those that are willing to get down and dirty and swallow their pride.

I know as I have done them in order to stay off the dole.

How does paying the rent, power etc directly and handing alms to give them a bit cash on hand teach budgeting?

And of course everyone on a benefit is there by choice and does not want to work.

Is your last conment a statement of fact or your opinion as i have not stated that in my post.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18565 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1583329 30-Jun-2016 13:49

vexxxboy:

i understand that things dont work out the way they were planned, but i bet your kids never went hungry or without the basics of clothes and shelter, im talking about the people who were struggling to provide the basics for themselves and keep having children for no reason other that they can. It almost should be classed as child abuse if you bring a child into this world with no way to care and provide for it.

That is an argument worthy of consideration. I just wonder (don't know) how many of these people are foolish teenagers who simply don't think about that kind of thing at their age but then have to deal with the consequences as they get older. Teenager or not, people don't always make rational, well thought-out decisions, but hungry children still have to be fed.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

spk18

85 posts

Master Geek

#1583333 30-Jun-2016 13:51

I would just suggest that watching the recent program "Why am I?" about the Dunedin study would be a good idea to become a bit more informed about some of the issues discussed thus far in this thread.

Their data shows that the long term costs to society of children growing up in an unsafe environment are significant (obviously to the child but also to society as a whole). So whether it is the parent's 'fault' or whether it isn't, it makes sense that the state (from an investment or cost/benefit point of view) should ensure that children have as good a start in life as possible and ensure that they are adequately fed, housed and resourced.

I don't have a problem with a carrot and stick approach whereby parents/caregivers who are not living up to their responsibilities are punished in some way, but only to the degree that it would not ultimately end up punishing the children. My point is that blaming the parents doesn't actually solve the problem; and its solving the problem that is the most important bit.

mattwnz

20038 posts

Uber Geek

#1583335 30-Jun-2016 13:53

Rikkitic:

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

It's NZs responsibility as a whole, which is why we have a government to do the work of picking up the people at the bottom. That is why we have a welfare state. The problem is in NZ the government are subcontracting out things more and more. So we have charities buying former state houses to run them etc. I don't believe we have a need for most charities if everyone paid their fair share of tax and were moral. Companies may try to legally reduce the tax they pay, and then they go give money to charities, which is somewhat ironic, but they do this probably for the advertising they get.

in the case of children, it is the parents who are ultimately responsible. But many don't don't know how to run a household economically, becuase they weren't taught how to.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1583336 30-Jun-2016 13:56

Jaxson:

As others have said, this is the endless argument, of which contributors beliefs and personalities will see them fall somewhere along the scale of the government should provide everything through to complete outright user pays. The extremes are just that, so the answer will most likely fall somewhere in the middle.

We are a pretty cruisey country though, in that the likes of ACC will cover your injuries from genuine accidents through to teh results of complete and utter stupidity. I suspect the solution is not to ignore the immediate issue of hungry children, but to also have a parallel plan to break the cycle to improve the situation in the long run. The same approach could be applied to offending and prison sentences, where punishing illegal behaviour alone does nothing to break the cycle of families raising children who invariably end in prison themselves and think it's just normal.

Good on Lorde, it at least puts the spot light back on the situation. I just hope the focus doesn't get lost in the political waffle.

It's not an endless argument. That's implying it's "pointless" or "futile". Just because there remain many libertarian-influenced people in forums and social media who shill the concept that "tax is theft" - therefore "welfare is amoral" doesn't mean that "balance" is between that evil, delusional, misanthropic view - and the social-democratic system we have.

Flaws in an implementation of a social security system doesn't mean that the concept of social security is flawed.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1583337 30-Jun-2016 13:57

There is also an apparent assumption that those seeking help for food, emergency housing and other assistance are in receipt of a Welfare Benefit. From Mr experience a not insignificant percentage of requests for help are from folks who are employed.

It goes hand in hand with a lot of misconceptions about welfare need and help.

mattwnz

20038 posts

Uber Geek

#1583338 30-Jun-2016 13:59

Normally when making a bigger donation to a cause, would you use your real name or not? Many people don't due to the publicity it gets. ALso then you get other people asking for donation. So I wonder if this donation came from someone else.

Finch

2847 posts

Uber Geek

#1583375 30-Jun-2016 14:20

Why do we have $30 Million up for grabs in lotto, but kids starving/ going without the necessities.

Something isn't right here...

Dairyxox

1594 posts

Uber Geek

#1583391 30-Jun-2016 14:57

I'm dreaming, but here's an idea: You have to be "enrolled" to buy alcohol & cigarettes.

If you can't feed your kids, you cant enroll.

Its a stick approach that shouldn't hurt the kids?

mattwnz

20038 posts

Uber Geek

#1583397 30-Jun-2016 15:03

Finch:

Why do we have $30 Million up for grabs in lotto, but kids starving/ going without the necessities.

Something isn't right here...

Also why is the average price for a house in Auckland nearly 1 million, which is nearly 20 times the average wage in NZ. Why are we lettings so many immigrants into NZ when we don't have the housing supply to house NZers, and this is why house prices are so high. Certainly something isn't right, but as National say, we don't have a housing crisis.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583398 30-Jun-2016 15:03

Fred99:

Geektastic:

Rikkitic:

I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.

You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.

But I'm sure you're 100% keen on reaping the benefits of living in a safe well-functioning society.

Perhaps not.

I would not describe a society in which children require strangers to feed them as "well-functioning" personally.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1583402 30-Jun-2016 15:07

Dairyxox:

I'm dreaming, but here's an idea: You have to be "enrolled" to buy alcohol & cigarettes.

If you can't feed your kids, you cant enroll.

Its a stick approach that shouldn't hurt the kids?

That is assuming that folks who are unable to afford food drink alcohol and smoke.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1583403 30-Jun-2016 15:08

vexxxboy:

MikeB4:
vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

Circumstances change. When we were expecting our first child we had two incomes our own home etc etc. Six months after our child was born the disease I have hit me, two months later no jobs, and we were forced through circumstance to sell our home car etc. Some would say we shouldn't have kids. Fast forward a few years i went into remission and able to work, by a home and general luxuries, that lasted 25 years. But again I flared in a wheel chair and unable to work so I took medical retirement. Again some would say that was our fault.

Luckily my wife has a very good job and we don't need an income from me yet I still get attitudes about that.

So let's not generalise and make judgements unless one knows all the circumstances.

i understand that things dont work out the way they were planned, but i bet your kids never went hungry or without the basics of clothes and shelter, im talking about the people who were struggling to provide the basics for themselves and keep having children for no reason other that they can. It almost should be classed as child abuse if you bring a child into this world with no way to care and provide for it.

I agree. I still see no reason why having children should not be a licensed activity. Why should you not have to demonstrate you have an understanding of the responsibilities, the ability to provide and so on?

With the world population exploding, I cannot see how unrestricted breeding can continue, personally. Eventually it will have to be managed.

scuwp

3873 posts

Uber Geek

#1583408 30-Jun-2016 15:14

Geektastic:
vexxxboy:

MikeB4:
vexxxboy:

how about not having kids if you cant afford to raise them for 18 or so years.

Circumstances change. When we were expecting our first child we had two incomes our own home etc etc. Six months after our child was born the disease I have hit me, two months later no jobs, and we were forced through circumstance to sell our home car etc. Some would say we shouldn't have kids. Fast forward a few years i went into remission and able to work, by a home and general luxuries, that lasted 25 years. But again I flared in a wheel chair and unable to work so I took medical retirement. Again some would say that was our fault.

Luckily my wife has a very good job and we don't need an income from me yet I still get attitudes about that.

So let's not generalise and make judgements unless one knows all the circumstances.

i understand that things dont work out the way they were planned, but i bet your kids never went hungry or without the basics of clothes and shelter, im talking about the people who were struggling to provide the basics for themselves and keep having children for no reason other that they can. It almost should be classed as child abuse if you bring a child into this world with no way to care and provide for it.

I agree. I still see no reason why having children should not be a licensed activity. Why should you not have to demonstrate you have an understanding of the responsibilities, the ability to provide and so on?

With the world population exploding, I cannot see how unrestricted breeding can continue, personally. Eventually it will have to be managed.

Scary but spot on. I have always maintained that something is wrong with a society where you have to be licensed to have a dog, with appropriate background and capability checks, but you can spit out as many kids as you please. Happy to help people in genuine need, but first they have to help themselves or be willing. So many they trump out on TV these days consistently demonstrate an inability to do so. Authorities can only do so much. Good on Lorde. At least she can afford it, not like most.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 9