Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

This just in: Cutting back on runaway government spending may be sexist.

In Britain, the government has an austerity plan. Yup, the very opposite approach from America’s Spend-a-lot Administration. But now the Tory spending reduction plan has been challenged in that nation’s high court by the Fawcett Society, a women’s rights group, which claims the plan would widen gender “inequality.”

Additionally, the country’s Independent Equality and Human Rights Commission recently ordered the treasury to show it had properly considered the impact on women and other “vulnerable groups” of the planned spending cuts.

Is the plan unfair? Well, it lays off government workers, 65 percent of whom are women. Is it discriminatory to women that they will now face more lay-offs? Or has it all along been discriminatory against men who as nearly half the population can’t get more than 35 percent of government jobs?

Or perhaps it is discriminatory against both men and women. Let’s all sue each other for trillions!

To show the potential impact, the Washington Post article noted that “deficit-cutting campaigns” are “underway from Greece to Spain,” adding, “and in the United States when it eventually moves to curb spending.”

Eventually? We’ll see . . . eventually. But, apparently, that budget tightening our federal government has so long refused to do, but could possibly do one day way off in the future, well, it’s probably sexist.

No worries, though: Economic collapse may be fairly gender neutral in its devastation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor


  1. Drik says:

    Actually, economic collapse disproportionally hurts women.

  2. Mary E says:

    The only way that economic collapse would hurt one gender more than another is if there are more of one gender than another in our population. If indeed the economy truely collapses, which it just may, we will all be effected to one degree or another. The wise look ahead and plan for tight times and are careful with their money and don’t do as the financiers would like us to do and get into debt unless it is truely necessary. Hard to do? Not really. Just hope for the best and plan for the worst. When it comes it is a softer blow.

  3. ForFreedom says:

    Perhaps we should ensure that government only spends money on citizens based on their tax contributions. I send the government $1, they send me back $1. That’d be fair, but it implies no government.

    Government should restrict itself to ensuring our liberty from criminals and foreign enemies. Anything else is picking Paul’s pocket to enrich Peter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2018 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top