“42% of American children live in low-income homes and about a fifth live in poverty. It gets worse. The number of children living in poverty has risen 33% since 2000… And, according to a 2007 Unicef report on child poverty, the U.S. ranked last among 24 wealthy countries. This is a national disgrace.”
“In 1994, about 30% of British children were below the country’s poverty threshold. Fifteen years later, that number has fallen to 12%. How did the British do it? It was a three-pronged attack:
1. They established a welfare-to-work program and a national minimum wage (which, at about $9, leaves ours wanting) and instituted tax reductions and credits for low-income workers. They made work more attractive, and people responded. The report said, “Lone-parent employment increased by 12 percentage points — from 45 percent to 57 percent — between 1997 and 2008.”
2. They raised child welfare benefits, especially for families with small children, whether or not the parents worked.
3. They invested directly in the lives of young children with things like doubling paid maternity leave, providing universal preschool, assisting with child care and allowing parents of young children to request flexible work schedules.
The British example shows that child poverty is not an intractable problem. If we can rise above the impulse to punish parents and focus on protecting children, we might replicate Britain’s success.
what they don’t tell you is that recently they drastically cut benefits for disabled children, a large portion of whom are already living in poverty. not to mention the recent tax cuts for the rich, the further cuts that have already left a multitude of disabled people on the verge of destitution. then there’s the granny tax, the fact that our corrupt, scumsucking excuse for a prime minister will change policy for the highest bidder… need i go on?
basically what i’m trying to say is that whilst this might be a step in the right direction, don’t use this country in it’s current state as a good example of anything. our only saving grace currently is that we’re not america - but hey, the the government is about to privatise our national health service that millions of people rely on to survive because obviously healthcare should be for the rich only..so we’re getting close, huh?
(via camembertlylegal)
![thedailywhat:
Pledge Of Allegiance of the Day: The Republican Party of Laurens County, South Carolina, last week unanimously passed a resolution requiring members who wish to run for public office to sign a pledge affirming that they were abstinent before marriage, that they are and will continue to be faithful to their spouse, that they are neither homosexual nor in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples, and that they will never again look at pornography.
The so-called “Resolution of The Laurens County Republican Party regarding The Qualifications of Candidates for the Primary Ballot” was approved by all 13 present members of the party’s executive committee at a meeting held last Tuesday.
An unidentified candidate who was present at the meeting said he was “puzzled” by the resolution, but the committee members refused to answer questions following the vote.
According to an unofficial report, a subcommittee consisting of three members will be responsible for ensuring that candidates meet the required criteria. It remained unclear how the party intended to “hold into account” candidates who ran afoul of the pledge.
Reached for comment, Laurens County Republican Party chairman Bobby Smith said the move was necessary to protect the party’s reputation.
“The party has been pushing for closed primaries,” Smith told the Clinton Chronicle. “People feel the platform has not been adhered to. We want candidates to believe in and uphold the party’s platform.”
The chairman released a statement today saying that, “due to various legal issues,” the party would not be allowed to force potential candidates who have met state qualifications to sign the pledge. However, the party “reserves the right to vet its candidates and will encourage all candidates to uphold the principles of the party’s platform as well as petition candidates to sign a pledge to do so.”
[chronicle / wlbg / tpm.]
seriously, america. do these sound like sane, rational people that you want to elect to run your country? SERIOUSLY?
LOOK AT YOUR LIFE, LOOK AT YOUR CHOICES, ETC.
xoxo sassy british friend.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0g0p45Dvn1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
Pledge Of Allegiance of the Day: The Republican Party of Laurens County, South Carolina, last week unanimously passed a resolution requiring members who wish to run for public office to sign a pledge affirming that they were abstinent before marriage, that they are and will continue to be faithful to their spouse, that they are neither homosexual nor in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples, and that they will never again look at pornography.
The so-called “Resolution of The Laurens County Republican Party regarding The Qualifications of Candidates for the Primary Ballot” was approved by all 13 present members of the party’s executive committee at a meeting held last Tuesday.
An unidentified candidate who was present at the meeting said he was “puzzled” by the resolution, but the committee members refused to answer questions following the vote.
According to an unofficial report, a subcommittee consisting of three members will be responsible for ensuring that candidates meet the required criteria. It remained unclear how the party intended to “hold into account” candidates who ran afoul of the pledge.
Reached for comment, Laurens County Republican Party chairman Bobby Smith said the move was necessary to protect the party’s reputation.
“The party has been pushing for closed primaries,” Smith told the Clinton Chronicle. “People feel the platform has not been adhered to. We want candidates to believe in and uphold the party’s platform.”
The chairman released a statement today saying that, “due to various legal issues,” the party would not be allowed to force potential candidates who have met state qualifications to sign the pledge. However, the party “reserves the right to vet its candidates and will encourage all candidates to uphold the principles of the party’s platform as well as petition candidates to sign a pledge to do so.”
seriously, america. do these sound like sane, rational people that you want to elect to run your country? SERIOUSLY?
LOOK AT YOUR LIFE, LOOK AT YOUR CHOICES, ETC.
xoxo sassy british friend.
Six GOP Co-Sponsors of PIPA Ask Reid to Cancel Vote
In an incredible turn of events, six Republican Senators have asked Majority Leader Harry Reid not to hold a vote onPIPA, the Senate version of SOPA.
They write, “Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.”
And as an amazing validation of the grassroots response to SOPA, led by groups like Fight for the Future, EFF, Public Knowledge, and Demand Progress, they write, “Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights.”
Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, and Tom Coburn signed the letter.
Here’s the text of the letter. PDF is here.
January 13, 2012
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We write to express our concerns with your decision to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the PROTECT IP Act (S, 968), We strongly believe that the theft of American intellectual property is a significant problem that must be addressed to protect property rights. However, for both substantive and procedural reasons, the process at this point is moving too quickly and this step may be premature.
As you know, on May 26. 2011. the Senate Judiciary- Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote. Prior to committee action, some members expressed substantive concerns about the bill, and there was a commitment to resolve them prior to floor consideration. That resolution has not yet occurred.
Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights. Moreover, in light of potential cybersecurity implications, we believe hearing from the Administration and relevant agencies is imperative, As always, our current fiscal crisis demands we carefully consider legislation that would cost taxpayers up to $48 million according to the Congressional Budget Office, These are serious issues that must be considered in an informed, deliberative and responsible manner. This underscores the need to resolve as many outstanding concerns as possible prior to proceeding to floor consideration.
Furthermore, we want to ensure that S. 968 will be afforded full and fair consideration on the Senate floor. It is important that the bill be fully debated and amendments not limited. We would like a firm commitment that once the Senate considers S. 968, the amendment process will be open, with senators being able to offer their amendments without the filling of the amendment tree, and that cloture will not be prematurely filed on the bin.
We are all in agreement that the online distribution and sale of pirated content and counterfeit goods impose a huge cost on the American economy in terms of lost jobs, lost sales, lost innovation and lost income. We also believe, however, that we need to arrive at the right solution in the right way on this important issue. To do so, we must have adequate time to properly analyze and resolve these concerns to the best extent possible prior to proceeding to the bill.
While we remain fully committed to addressing outstanding issues with S. 968, we believe that, at this point, the scheduled consideration of the bill on January 24, 2012, may not permit Oslo work through many of the concems that have been raised.
Sincerely,
Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn
UPDATE: And Sen. Ben Cardin [D, MD] adds his name to the list of co-sponsors walking back their support. Full up-to-date vote tally here.
UPDATE 2: Welcome, Reddit! We love you!
[via opencongress]
Take your pick.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the GOP.
This photoset makes my head hurt. And my heart.
What’s funny is I don’t know a Republican that can defend any of these idiots, like they’ve tried to talk shit about Obama to me and then I ask them about these idiots and they go silent.
Seriously, I knew four year olds with more common sense than these people who think they would be good presidents. I don’t understand how one could logically support any of them.
sighs so hard that my chest forcefully inverts itself and my respiratory system flies out of my mouth and comes to rest on my chest, pulsating like a dying deep sea fish
I’ll be 18 by the time the big election comes up
I think it won’t hurt to wait another four years…
(via runprettyrunaway)
police brutality is real.
‘to protect and serve’ my fat arse. you know, america really needs to put it’s own house in order (as do we in the uk) before interfering with other countries. this bullshit should not be allowed to happen in a so-called civilised country.
