Forget the fact that Brash is an incompetent warmonger who desperately wants to be another one of Bush’s poodles. Now you’ve got a bona fide middle-class reason to vote Green or Labour.
I must admit I had a little bounce in my step on my way to work this morning in London, having just received news from New Zealand that Labour have finally come to their senses and made it their policy to scrap student loan interest rates as of April of 2006 if they are part of the government in the next term.
Having already racked up $18 000 in interest this has the potential to save me personally up to $40 000 in the long run.
Looks like I’ll finally be able to do a bit of travel and come home earlier than expected, which is kinda cool because my brother and sisters are all starting to have kids. And like my mate, and fellow expat, Boggsy said, looks like our generation finally gets a break after being the whiping-boy for so long.
It’s rumoured that my father has traditionally been a Nat-voter. Well if I haven’t yet convinced him that Brash is in fact an incompetent warmonger, now there’s always the fact that he’s not going to vote to put his son $40 000 further into debt. And I can imagine a number of other parents will be thinking the same way.
As an aside, I’m interested to see what effect this policy might have on a baseless theory I have; that our high youth suicide rate is partly affected by the fact that there’s always a certain group of people in their twenties out of the country and therefore not participating in NZ society. If this group of people hold off traveling overseas until they’ve paid their loans off and they’re a little older I wonder if this might have a positive effect on teenagers and consequently bring the suicide rate down. Wishful thinking I know, but there ya go.
Oh yeah, and just to be on the safe side make sure you vote Green, who have an even better tertiary education policy.
Comments
Your complete self-centeredness astounds me. That $40000 you save has to be stolen from other people.
But who cares about them? It’s all about you, isn’t it.
Hey, I’m from the capitalist generation, self-centredness is what makes the world go round remember? We’re not supposed to criticise people for being self-centred. Oh wait, maybe that’s only the ones who rape the planet and its people for monetary gain?
Anyway, yes, I’m so self-centred that after I’ve got an education and can make myself useful, I’d like to pool my resources with lots and lots of other selfish pinko commies who also like the idea of education and give my children and their children an education and an equal footing. Kinda like Pay it Forward, ya know. And when they can make themselves useful, hopefully they’ll be as self-centred as we were and do the same thing for the next generation. Even better, they might get round to implementing an even more selfish anti-democratic economy. Of course there’s always the possibility that a bunch of well-meaning generous folk might come along stick a spanner in the works, steal all this pooled money and dish it out amongst themselves so they can become more powerful and we can dispense with this silly democracy thing once and for all. The secret is to always be vigilant, because those generous folk are always looking for a way to be real generous.
Anyway, ’bout being astounded, I guess some sick adult (possibly an ex-leftist) played a nasty trick and fooled you into being a right-winger. You could get help. Then again I find it quite useful to point to comments like yours. Sure helps when pointing out the bankruptcy of your ideology.
Mock all you like. It won’t change the fact that your favoured policy steals from the poor and uneducated and gives to the rich.
Giving money to those who do get educated, means taking it from the uneducated. It’s Robin Hood in reverse. I find that unjust.
I want my children to have an education too, but I’m planning to earn the money to pay for it, not steal it from others.
At this point I’d just like to go on the record as saying that I am not RWDB and I am not holding a mock conversation to make right-wingers look silly.
I wonder if these right-wing comments from the likes of RWDB are from one person using different nicknames to give an impression of numbers.
Son, if you’re not paying the interest on the loan — who is?
Why bother announcing that? As if anyone actually reads this pathetic excuse for a blog.
A couple of tips for increasing your readership:
1. Try engaging in rational debate rather than witless insults.
2. You’ve already done free PR work for Saddam Hussein. You don’t need to do it for Osama bin Laden and the London bombers too. It does get tiresome.
PS Here’s the quote of the day at my blog. Tell me what you think. (Remember, rational discussion good, witless insults bad.)
“The philosophic justification for the “root causes” argument that we’ve heard so much about is the idea that the people who attacked us were motivated by what we ourselves had done to them earlier. But it goes deeper than that: if we are responsible, then they cannot be. And that can only be because they are not capable of being responsible. They are not truly adults; they are children or beasts who respond to conditions in predictable ways. We do not hold children to the same standard of responsibility as we hold adults, and these racists don’t hold the people of the world to those standards either.
If by our acts we brought this tragedy upon ourselves, then had we acted differently we would not have. Which means that we have a paternalistic obligation to control how everyone else in the world behaves, through our acts towards them. They will merely react to us; all responsibility is here. We are the only moral thinking people on earth and thus the only ones who can sin. If we can only bring ourselves to be sufficiently kind and generous to them, then they will live good lives. They are innocent, they cannot know sin, for they are not sufficiently sophisticated to do so. They are less than we are.
This is deeply loving and compassionate chauvinistic contempt. It reached its most pathological in Fisk’s notorious attempt to explain away his being beaten by a crowd in Pakistan as ultimately being the result of western imperialism. This attitude is racism of the most intense kind. The ironic thing is that there is no group of people more ready to accuse others of racism than those who have these attitudes.”
tincanman: putting aside the stupidity of charging ourselves interest on our own money, with what I hope to pay in taxes when I go back home to NZ I’ll be happily paying back my tuition fees many times over, so other people can get an education too.
RWDB, I mock you because, for me, that is the only rational response to your crazy right-wing claptrap. You really have mistaken me for someone who might be concerned with your opinions. I’m not, I just don’t concern myself with people like you. I did once but then I realised how many of you believe what you believe for the wrong reasons. Very deep down we may hold values that have similarities but we are so fundamentally opposed as to how even these values should be implemented we hardly even understand each other. And it doesn’t matter what we say to each other, this fact is almost certainly not going to change. You make comments to me as if I hold the same frameworks as you. I don’t, I don’t even hold hold the same frameworks that most Westerners do, let alone a right-winger like yourself. My time is better spent talking with some of the deluded left-wingers who have been led astray by the right-wing ideology that pervades so many facets of our lives.
It’s just another straw man. It makes the silly assumption that responsibility cannot be shared. I’ve often found that right-wingers tend to have a very narrow and self-interested view of what responsibility is.
As for my ‘pathetic excuse for a blog,’ trust me kid, I take that as a high compliment coming from someone calling themselves “Right Wing Death Beast.”
By the way, if you’re going to waste time posting here please keep it on topic.
In fact, I used to be left-wing Christiaan. So let’s both agree to cut the insults and debate this one issue.
Look, does your framework tell you that stealing from the poor to give to the rich is right, or wrong? Because that’s what this scheme does.
“I’ll be happily paying back my tuition fees many times over, so other people can get an education too.”
So will most other people, including those who choose not to get an education. So effectively, this is a tax break for you (an educated person) at the expense of those with little or no education. The less education you had, the more this policy harms you.
Those with more education are wealthier overall, so what you’re advocating is Tax Cuts for the Rich, at the expense of the poor/uneducated.
I just can’t believe self-proclaimed advocates of the poor are supporting this.
“It makes the silly assumption that responsibility cannot be shared.”
Well it can’t, every sane adult is responsible for their own actions, but OK, let’s stick to the one topic.
Is stealing from the poor to give to the rich wrong? Yes, or no?
So you’re a flip-flopper, as they say. I picked you for an ex-leftist. Sheeple is the term I prefer. There’s only one thing worse than a right-winger and that’s a self-proclaimed ex-leftist right-winger. I have a question for you. Which part of “I’m not concerned with your opinions” do you not understand? I’m not interested in your loaded questions and I really don’t care what you think this scheme does. I think you’re wrong and I’ve already outlined why. There is very little to no point in us debating. We are only going to talk past each other. It is a waste of time. I would rather talk to other people for reasons I have explained. You appear to have a psychological problem with this.
The very fact that you believe responsibility cannot be shared is a clear indication that you are quite irrational. Of course people are generally responsible for their own actions. That doesn’t mean they can’t share responsibility for the outcome of their actions and the actions of others.
And while you’re trying to figure that one out maybe you’d like think about who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children through brutal economics sanctions and bombings. Or the hundreds of thousands bombed in Vietnam and Cambodia. Or the hundreds of thousands fire bombed and nuclear bombed in Japan.
–If you’re not interested in debate, why do you have comments? You only want to hear from people who already agree with you? What is the point of that?
If you seriously want me to totally stop posting here I’m happy to oblige, but I’ll leave you with a few final replies:
–Everyone starts out as a leftist, but sensible people grow to see it for the simplistic thinking it is, and abandon it. If you are not leftist by 20 you have no heart, and if you are not rightist by 30 you have no brain, as the saying goes.
–If you don’t agree with the terms of my question, ie that the rich are the winners and the poor the losers from the scheme, then who are the winners and losers? If you are not paying the interest, somebody else is. Who?
–People can only share responsibility for the outcome of their actions and the actions of others if they force those others to do those actions. I should have said “own FREE actions.” If you are coerced then clearly those doing the coercion have responsibility. So on that basis your pal Saddam Hussein’s regime was responsible for starving his people (you would have been too, if your attempt to coerce the coalition into letting Saddam stay in power had been successful) and getting the country bombed, the Soviet Union was responsible for Vietnam and Cambodia, and Hitler and Imperial Japan for the nukes.
PS The sanctions on Iraq weren’t brutal, Northern Iraq was under the same sanctions, yet not under Baghdad control, and their population prospered. Saddam Hussein was brutal, not sanctions.
Before you get too excited there, don’t forget that it is only available for those who stay in NZ, so you’re not home free yet.
As a student who works and managed to pay my way through the first 3 years of my degree and was force to take out a loan for my last semester — let me just say that It’s pretty rich to here all those oldies out there complaining about the handout that Labour is offering. Never mind that they didn’t have to pay a cent for their tertiary education.
The policy recognises that it is far more attractive for graduates to ditch the country — interest free loans are a simple, and relative cheap, way to encourage top tax bracket earners to stay.
In the long run, it will pay off.
Ouch, my grammar is terrible.
Just wanted to add: how is this policy stealing from the poor? Presumeably the increased tax on a graduate who stays will equate to more than the interest payments from a graduate who has left?
ie, A graduate increasing their income from 25000/year to 60000/year — paying at least $7000 more/year in tax to the govt — compare this to ZERO tax collected and say ~$2000 /year in interest for ex-pat. And this is just off the top of my head with VERY conservative figures (ie 20% tax bracket, which is way under what it is in reality). Considering the number of grads leaving, it makes a lot of economic sense.
RWDB wrote,
I don’t call this debating. I call this talking past each other. I also call it mocking you for the entertainment of others.
You’re not very good at listening are you? I’m generally only interested in talking about economics and imperialism with people whose minds I might change or who might change mine. You’re not one of these people to me and nor I to you.
Just admit it, you’re flip-flopper. You follow the crowd.
Okay, so not only are you irrational and right-wing, you’re also pretty stupid. Neither my flatmate nor I were coerced to make dinner with each other last night but we both shared responsibility for the outcome of our actions, the meal we made. Our actions had predictable results. Just as the actions of imperialists and terrorists do. Get it?
It’s all black and white to you isn’t it? Is this what the U.S. State (propaganda) Department told you? I’m guessing you probably agree too with Madeleine Albright when she said half a million dead Iraqi children was a ‘price worth paying.’
There’re two responses to the propaganda you have happily swallowed and now regrettably regurgitate on my website. One of those response cuts to the core of your lack of understanding about actions and the results of actions. Under sanctions, at least hundreds of thousands more Iraqis died. Whether or not the sanctions that the UK and U.S. imposed were intrinsically lethal or were only so when manipulated by Baghdad, the UK and U.S. governments had the ability to reduce the suffering if they chose to.
Secondly, as Hans Van Sponeck, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, noted, since the bombing of the “Persian Gulf War” was concentrated in southern Iraq, the destruction of civilian infrastructure was most severe there. Yet the oil-for-food program provided no funding for the distribution of food and medicine in southern and central Iraq. Southern and central Iraq also received far less support per capita from the international community than northern Iraq. Comprising 85 percent of the population, southern and central Iraq benefited from only 11 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as opposed to the 34 NGOs which northern Iraq benefited from. Similarly, northern Iraq received 22 percent more per capita from the oil-for-food program and about 10 percent of UN-controlled assistance in currency, while the rest of the country received only commodities (Education for Peace in Iraq Center). Essentially the embargo in the North was not the same embargo as the rest of the country.
Heh, I woulda guessed, I just didn’t think you’d be stupid enough to write it down. When it comes to the direct actions of another culture (the attacks on London) it can’t be anyone’s responsibility but the perpetrators of those direct actions. Yet, when it comes to the direct actions of your own culture (which are far and away more heinous) you instinctively point the finger elsewhere. Like I said your ideology is bankrupt. You’re also a racist and a bigot and you don’t even know it. Yes please, get the fuck off my blog.
Hamish wrote,
Yeah I know, but it means I can afford to come home much earlier than expected. I’m also not technically a “graduate” as I took a job part way into my studies and haven’t looked back. I haven’t worked out if this is a problem yet. If it is I only have a couple of papers to finish anyway.
If I might be granted the right of reply:
–If I followed the crowd, I wouldn’t be an Act voter!
–We’re not talking about responsibility for a project, we are talking about responsibility for a person’s own actions. If your flatmate spills the meal on the floor by accident, then he alone is responsible for that (unless you tripped him up, in which case you were coercing him).
–It’s wrong to say that lifting sanctions could have alleviated suffering. With or without sanctions, Saddam Hussein had access to sufficient supplies, yet wouldn’t give them to his people. In actual fact Northern Iraq suffered much more damage than Southern Iraq; thanks to Saddam Hussein, who basically levelled the place. Your sources on funding differences are incorrect, and it’s a moot point anyway because the North still had about half their funds left in the kitty after years of sanctions. You can’t seriously be claiming that Saddam was making a sincere effort to feed the starving but just didn’t have the funds, when he was building palaces for himself at the same time.
–You have misunderstood my point on coercion. The London attacks were the free choice of the bombers, hence their own responsibility. Japan, for example, was bombed because it was a necessary measure to end the war and save lives. Thus Imperial Japan coerced this to happen, and so the responsibility lies with them.
If you can’t see a difference between these, you are the one with the bankrupted ideology. Branding me a racist demonstrates nothing but your own prejudice.
Christiaan — hey man, fun baiting, nice blog, — but please put the RightWing DeathBlogger out of his misery or is that mystery?
RWDB — couple of quick points. 1. Education has a huge public good element — hence the strong (and rational) economic justification for public funding. 2. tertiary education use to be (effectively) free to students. The direct payback (in addition to the PG element above) was our wonderful progressive tax system — where graduates, when they successfully apply their education within NZ, pay significantly more tax than non-graduates and hence pay back into the public purse to fund further provision of tertiary education for others.
Christiaan short-handed this when he referred to ‘Pay it Forward’ and Hamish covered most of the rest of it in his post. Hope this makes it a little more linear for you.
Tincanman: hope the above also answers your question of who pays.
Right Wing Death: surprisingly there is a connection between where this thread started with your comment:
“Your complete self-centeredness astounds me. That $40000 you save has to be stolen from other people”
…and ended up with a major diversion (initiated by you again) into the ‘root cause’ argument and issues of responsibility.
That connection starts with a recognition that you’re wrong in your first comment — that resposibility for funding education can be shared voluntarily between generations — there is no necessary requirement for theft — simply by one generation of students paying, via their higher marginal tax rates, for the next generations education. Many of us benefited from this in the form of a free education.
This alternative approach, which operated successfully in NZ for decades was based on a social contract and on co-operation. Possibly an alien concept to one of your apparent political persuasions.
Of course this brings us back to the nub of what became the dominant argument in this thread — namely, the recognition of the significance of a concept of shared responsibility and mutual obligations to ensure social and economic justice.
Enough from me. Thank the Brethrens’ God that Don and Rodney and that nutter Roger Kerr didn’t get their hands on the levers of power.