Lik

Lik and his fellows. This is an article worth your guys' reading.  It is good that it mentioned abou ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-26 15:51

撚樣，真係想唔爆粗diu柒你都唔得...

全世界都知道，而我亦響 forum 度講咗9億幾次：香港嘅通脹係因為外來因素：講元同貶緊值嘅美金掛勾、人民幣對美金有升值壓力，而偏偏香港絕大部份嘅糧食同好多用品都係來自中國大陸，所以香港啲通脹先至咁勁。就算係派錢嘅話、就算全部使晒啲錢來買野，呢個 demand 同中國大陸嘅 supply 都係差天共地，完全無能力令個 supply-demand curve 嘅 equilibrium point 移位。呢個咁簡單嘅問題，唔需要識 econ 嘅人都諗到：試問區區一個只得700萬人嘅小香港，有無足夠嘅購買力、需求力去影響有13億人嘅大中國市場？！

從來只有中國大陸嘅人同熱錢先至有能力炒貴香港嘅野：房屋如是、奶粉如是。係你呢啲咁撚死蠢嘅戇玖擦鞋仔，為咗要舔阿爺屎眼同獻媚先至會講埋啲咁仆街又顛倒是非嘅說話。

你特衰政府一日做野抵消呢啲外來嘅通脹因素，通脹就一直都會響香港持續。香港係國際金融中心，所以唔可以限制外來資金嘅出入，所以阻止唔到中國大陸熱錢嘅流入。你係有種嘅話就同美金脫勾，咁港紙就無咗貶值嘅壓力，而通脹亦都會大大減輕。但同你一樣咁仆街嘅特衰政府（包括鬍鬚曾）就死都唔肯取消聯繫匯率㗎喇，所以會幫市民對抗通脹就只有從其他方面入手。派錢係其中一個極為可行嘅方法，因為政府絕對有呢個能力，而市民收到錢之後就會有多少彈藥去對抗外來因素而帶來嘅通脹。

同一個 point 我不吓同你條仆街講咗最少5、6、7次。你咪撚再來徙我時間。

返去舔阿爺嘅屎眼啦，賤種！

-力

Lik

我送三個字俾你呢個回覆：假、大、空。

你呢篇廢物回覆有無任何實質嘅提議？好對唔住，無。

1）長期有效計劃去降低貧富懸殊和解決社會貧困問題，政府有無做？同你個回覆一樣：無。回歸以後如果政策唔係一直一面倒咁對大有錢佬傾斜嘅話，會搞到有今日咁嘅貧富懸殊？再者，你做得啲所謂嘅降低貧富懸殊和解決社會貧困問題嘅野出來嘅時候，有需要果班人已經餓撚死咗喇！自財政預算案推出以後，鬍鬚曾其中一樣一直俾人diu嘅野就係「遠水不能救近火」。

而且，講過9億幾次，你香港特衰政府坐擁咁大嘅儲備愛來托咩？又唔係唔夠錢來一邊派錢、一邊搞長達啲嘅扶貧計劃，點解唔可以兩樣一齊做？

2）既然你個不該特衰政府唔做野來幫助市民，咁市民咪唯有自救囉？叫你開倉派果少少錢，既公平，又唔係無，點解唔做？

成日講埋你啲垃圾歪理，去仆街啦你！

-力

Lik

The only thing I did not agree with you guys is to give out cash instead of providing direct assistance to those families in more direct and effective ways. However, that will requires the government make a bigger commitment than simply giving out cash.
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-27 11:05

LOL~

For the poor families that are having difficulties in making ends meet, what kind of assistance can possibly be more direct than directly giving them money to alleviate their woes in daily life?

Moron~

-Lik

Lik

Do you have no fxxking idea what "having difficulties in making ends meet" mean? It means you are barely having enough money or don't have enough money to survive your daily living expenses. Perhaps you don't have enough $$ to eat 3 full meals. Perhaps you don't have enough money to keep yourself warm. Perhaps you don't have enough money to support you to even take public transit to go out and work. When you are in poverty like that, what other assistance could possibly be more helpful than directly receiving cash??? The family can direct funds to whichever item they need the most help with.

Another glaringly simple fact that I didn't think I need to mention previously because it is so obviously simple is the matter of fairness and equality. The assistance measures as outlined by the current budget proposal is inherently unfair as they are biased towards redistributing more wealth to the rich and the middle class instead of those who need the assistance the most. Additionally, every assistance / subsidy / allowance program will invariable miss out certain groups because of their selection criteria. In the current budget proposal, a group that the HK media refers to as the 5無階層 or N無階層 are left out in the cold because they don't meet the requirements to fall into any of the beneficiary group. When you give money out to every HK citizen with a valid 3-star HKID, you are NOT going to miss anyone. (I wouldn't even be completely against giving money out to those poorer HK residents that have yet to receive full HK citizenship status as long as they can prove some sort of extended residential status, or perhaps have the payout scaled relative to the number of years they have been in HK -- where 7 years of residency is needed to obtain full citizenship status).

Now of course, having fully rebutted your stupid arguments, I just know you are still gonna keep on screaming and yelling that I am somehow still missing your point, or that I am not understanding your stupid English, or that I am still somehow a stupid Coward. I wouldn't expect anything less from the likes of you though.

-Lik

Lik

去仆街啦你～

基層家庭有錢收嘅話，係得你先至會咁撚戇車來攞咗舊錢去食餐魚翅撈飯。稍為有腦嘅都會識得呢度攞多少來買餸、果度攞少少來買返件衫俾女女，慢慢逐啲逐啲咁來搣啦。食餐 one go meal 就 fing 晒舊錢？人地係窮，唔係好似你咁係低能㗎！

而我亦講咗9億幾次咁樣用錢法無能力令通脹加劇。你自己唔撚識、唔撚睇、唔撚認就少都唔該你咪撚講你啲廢物論述。再者，鬍鬚曾住資入強積金來派錢明益啲 fund 佬、免差餉俾有物業嘅人（而且係越多物業就得益越多），咁樣呢啲本身已經比基層市民更有能力應付通脹嘅人多咗錢就唔會加劇通脹，但基層市民將啲錢用返落社會來改善自己生活就會令通脹惡化？你呢啲乜撚野仆街邏輯來㗎？

Direct subsidy will make sure the assistance will directly meet the end needs？件鬍鬚曾自己都講到明叫你班死窮鬼有事就去搵社處求助，而唔係去搞佢、質問佢、同質疑佢個財政預算案呀！不爭嘅事實就係，特衰政府扶貧嘅 track record 極差，由金融風暴果陣減咗綜緩錢到今日一直都未加返，到加生果金要資產審查啲老人家，再到近日嘅區區果＄600嘅交津都唔肯實行雙軌制，每一件事都印證住呢個特衰政府同你一樣係幾咁仆街！靠佢啲 subsidy 來make sure 啲 assistance will directly meet the end needs？有需要嘅人餓撚死晒都未見到一個崩呀，仆街！

If the assistance is delivered through subsidy, the government has a way to monitor its effectiveness and is able to make adjustment or improvement in next budget year? 狗官思維僵化，所謂嘅 monitor 咪又係搞埋啲無敵資產審查同迫啲子女簽衰仔紙之類嘅折墮賤招？你以為我成日diu佢善財難捨、冤枉甘心係假嘅、係老屈佢嘅？

Possibility of some people could be missed out by this method is not a critical point to defeat this method since it can be always improved to minimize this impact? 如果特衰政府係公平、公正嘅話，咁香港嘅貧富懸殊就唔會係全世界第一啦！淨係單單從今次財政預算案你就可以睇到佢有無 miss 到任何人，又有無 minimize 到呢個幫助不均嘅問題。生果金同綜緩出雙糧都係每個人攞多＄4千零蚊，而攞緊綜緩嘅就接近係最弱勢、最需要緩助嘅人。但我之前都講過，fund佬今次就大有斬鑊賺到笑，有樓、有能力對抗吓通脹嘅人就越多樓越受惠。咁樣又係唔係 minimize 咗接受唔到任何幫助嘅 N無人士？有係唔係公平咁去幫助有需要嘅人？

去死啦，你條賤精！

-力

Lik

LOL～

點解次次都係俾我駁到你一棟到無，然後你就借啲易唔聲唔聲咁再問其他問題來轉移視線？點解我又唔見你情理兼備、深入淺出咁講解吓你果啲所謂嘅偉論？

次次都齋問人夠唔夠薑回答你，好喇，我答咗你你又自己走頭。

成日話人無膽匪類，但真正仆街果個卻係你。

快啲返去舔阿爺屎眼啦，賤種～

-力

Lik

那只更凸顯出你那比肛門更狹小的器量。
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2011-2-28 00:49

Like~!