Government Stupidity?
Today the porridge didn't boil over!
Yes, Dear Reader, it's a very minor event and it's only in the microwave so it's easy to clean up, but . . . Now all I have to do is remember how I did it today!
Much more seriously, changes to benefits coming in this week could force more families into poverty. The changes are apparently designed to 'make work pay'*, with the government saying it is determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage**.
So they'll be doing this by not paying benefit (used to be called Family Allowance***, back in the day when our two made us eligible) to any child born into families after 6th April where that is the third child (or more.)
Errr, how is this supposed to 'help'? I dare say there are a lot of women in 'restricted circumstances' who are pregnant at the moment. So they won't be getting any financial help towards bringing up their third (fourth/fifth?) child. What are they supposed to do? Go get an abortion?
Strikes me that, while (perhaps) trying to improve matters, this change in the law is primarily anti-women, particularly anti-mothers and also anti-children.
Now I know that reliable forms of contraception have been widely available for donkeys years (that's why we just have the two children) but women still get pregnant. Sometimes even when they've used contraception. Then some contraceptives are expensive.
So what's a poorer woman to do? She's already, in too many cases, having to choose between feeding her children and feeding herself or paying various bills or buying clothes for her children or . . . Where do contraceptives fit into that already overstretched budget?
Now I know that, just as these mothers have limited income, the government too has limited income. Mind you, the government could raise its income quite easily - except that voters have become conditioned to expect lower taxation, directly or indirectly. We also seem to have bought into the lie that 'the country can't afford to', when the reality is that the UK is one of the richest countries in the world. So of course the government could afford to, if it really wanted to.
Gah!
And Finally - President Trump has again been making statements. This time about North Korea, which has been flexing its military muscles and test firing rockets which could be used to carry bombs. These days they could even bomb cities in the USA.
"If China is not going to solve***** North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you, he said in an interview with the UK newspaper the Financial Times.
. . .
. . !
. . ?
More than ever I am glad that, despite apparent evidences to the contrary, Almighty God is in charge!
Y'all have a good day now!
*Right. What kind of work do they think these women will be getting? Probably part-time (to fit around school hours etc) and basic rate (the much vaunted Real Living Wage**** which comes in this month too.) I can just see that helping women and their families out of poverty!
**If the government is so darned keen on tackling 'the root causes of disadvantage' then maybe they could do so in a less derisory and anti-women, anti-children manner.
***Mum tells me that way back in the day when she was eligible for Family Allowance, it wasn't paid for the first child. Thus she only got the benefit (then universal) for Sis and Bro.
****Other people, who have made calculations, reckon that the Real Living wage won't allow people to actually live on it. It'll just be a bit less of a struggle. Even when they budget, take things carefully and all the other things they should do.
*****Err, how can you 'solve' a country?
Yes, Dear Reader, it's a very minor event and it's only in the microwave so it's easy to clean up, but . . . Now all I have to do is remember how I did it today!
Much more seriously, changes to benefits coming in this week could force more families into poverty. The changes are apparently designed to 'make work pay'*, with the government saying it is determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage**.
So they'll be doing this by not paying benefit (used to be called Family Allowance***, back in the day when our two made us eligible) to any child born into families after 6th April where that is the third child (or more.)
Errr, how is this supposed to 'help'? I dare say there are a lot of women in 'restricted circumstances' who are pregnant at the moment. So they won't be getting any financial help towards bringing up their third (fourth/fifth?) child. What are they supposed to do? Go get an abortion?
Strikes me that, while (perhaps) trying to improve matters, this change in the law is primarily anti-women, particularly anti-mothers and also anti-children.
Now I know that reliable forms of contraception have been widely available for donkeys years (that's why we just have the two children) but women still get pregnant. Sometimes even when they've used contraception. Then some contraceptives are expensive.
So what's a poorer woman to do? She's already, in too many cases, having to choose between feeding her children and feeding herself or paying various bills or buying clothes for her children or . . . Where do contraceptives fit into that already overstretched budget?
Now I know that, just as these mothers have limited income, the government too has limited income. Mind you, the government could raise its income quite easily - except that voters have become conditioned to expect lower taxation, directly or indirectly. We also seem to have bought into the lie that 'the country can't afford to', when the reality is that the UK is one of the richest countries in the world. So of course the government could afford to, if it really wanted to.
Gah!
And Finally - President Trump has again been making statements. This time about North Korea, which has been flexing its military muscles and test firing rockets which could be used to carry bombs. These days they could even bomb cities in the USA.
"If China is not going to solve***** North Korea, we will. That is all I am telling you, he said in an interview with the UK newspaper the Financial Times.
. . .
. . !
. . ?
More than ever I am glad that, despite apparent evidences to the contrary, Almighty God is in charge!
Y'all have a good day now!
*Right. What kind of work do they think these women will be getting? Probably part-time (to fit around school hours etc) and basic rate (the much vaunted Real Living Wage**** which comes in this month too.) I can just see that helping women and their families out of poverty!
**If the government is so darned keen on tackling 'the root causes of disadvantage' then maybe they could do so in a less derisory and anti-women, anti-children manner.
***Mum tells me that way back in the day when she was eligible for Family Allowance, it wasn't paid for the first child. Thus she only got the benefit (then universal) for Sis and Bro.
****Other people, who have made calculations, reckon that the Real Living wage won't allow people to actually live on it. It'll just be a bit less of a struggle. Even when they budget, take things carefully and all the other things they should do.
*****Err, how can you 'solve' a country?