"...sole parents constitute something less than 2 percent of benefit dependants..."
She is completely out of touch.
Sole parents who are benefit dependants constitute 2% of the working population.
Lynch, to his credit, tackled her on the issue of mothers not being obliged to name the fathers of their children, by talking about the importance of fathers to families. She then contradicts herself by saying we can't hark back to the 1950s because families have changed so much. But earlier she was pushing the line that we need to go back to the beginning of welfare, when it was called social 'security' and reflect those values. She can't have it both ways
Then she clearly tells him that child poverty has worsened since 2003. From the official government source:
• There is no evidence of any increasing depth of relative income poverty over the last two decades.
Kiro has a track record of telling porkies.
The best I can offer is maybe she genuinely believes her own statements and is merely misguided.
The alternative is unpalatable.
3 comments:
The truth is often unpalatable but it is still the truth. Kiro is simply simple and should be no where near anything important.
3:16
Pretty sure Kiro is intelligent enough to know she is flat-out lying. Family structure is, of course, irrelevant in the matter of naming the father. This current law is solely there to ensure that fathers, rather than taxpayers, pay for their children. Abandoning this law will virtually guarantee that many more fathers will abandon their children as it incentivizes them to do so in order to gain more taxpayer dollars. It is either an extremely stupid idea or and extremely evil one, depending on how kind you are.
Excellent. It is necessary to know that the head of this upgraded redistribution progrom is incompetent, or stupid, or both.
Post a Comment