When the Government Plays Husband
December 12th, 2012 - 4:17 am
Zero Hedge: “Better off on Benefits:”
There is “no point” earning less in a minimum wage job is how Leanna Broderick – 20-year-old mother of two – justifies the benefits she claims adding that “she is better off on benefits” and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.
This is why when Obama and co. say “We tried our plan and it worked” I take them at their word. This is *precisely* what they are trying to accomplish. Fostering any sort of actual economic recovery was never in the cards (although he would take credit for it just the same).
I think I’m going to be ill.
This is nothing new. Many years ago, I read an article that examined the wages a person would have to earn to break even with welfare benefits. It varied considerably from state to state (IIRC, Alabama was near the bottom and Hawaii was near the top). Even then, a person (say single mother with 2 kids) would have to earn over $15 a hour in Alabama to break even with the assorted welfare programs. Since few of them had the skills to earn that kind of income, they were better off remaining on welfare.
Add to that the steep cliff of benefits cutoff when income crosses a certain threshold; you can go from receiving hundreds of dollars a month in food stamps to nothing if your income is even $1 above the threshold. That is an incentive to keep your (legal) income below those thresholds.
As more and more hook up to the matrix, tell me again how I need to stay engaged and fight for freedoms these people do not value, do not want, and will not defend. I will be outvoted until the crash and then it won’t matter.
Convert your resources into things the government has difficulty taking from you.
I plan to convert my resources to frequent trips to Rio for sex tourism.
Reminds me of Tug McGraw.
“I’ve made millions and spent 90% of it on bourbon and women. The other 10% I wasted.”
I wish I could afford an iPad. But then, I work for a living, I’m happily married, and have two wonderful children, and I’ve done this without depending on the government. Man, am I a sap.
Thomas Sowell perfectly described how government manufactures poverty by implementing welfare programs in his book The Vision of the Anointed.
One day we will stop looking at single mothers as social victims when, in fact, they are–knowingly or not–the perpetrators of horrific social disorder. Not that I intend to let deadbeat dads or other men who skirt their paternal responsibilities off the hook, but they are a much smaller population than parasite moms.
“Paternal responsibilities”? How can men have any responsibility for children when we have no authority over whether those children are born or not? THAT decision rests solely with the mother. If we have no control over her decision, why should we have any responsibility for the consequences of her decision?
The idea of “paternal responsibility” became a dead letter the moment the SCOTUS decided Roe v. Wade.
If a man has consensual and unprotected sex with a woman of child-bearing age, he is rolling the reproductive dice. If a child is produced, he shares responsibility for the child. What the SCOTUS does means jack shit.
I resent men’s near-completely absent reproductive rights, but that does not abrogate our reproductive responsibilities. If you take a woman’s word that she is on the pill or had her tubes tied, you’re a sucker and a moron. And just because you don’t have the legal authority to force her to abort does not absolve you from shared responsibility.
How can men have any responsibility for children when we have no authority over whether those children are born or not?
Don’t fuck her. There’s your authority.
Nope, sorry, that places all the responsibility on the man. Sure, it takes two to tango, but after the act, the man has no further input. If women want to sleep around, fine, but they can’t then claim that it’s the man’s responsibility to pay for the consequences of *her* irresponsibility.
As for the man sharing responsibility for the “child”, he shares responsibility for the *pregnancy*, but the child is entirely the woman’s.
Granted, no court in the country will accept the reasoning, which is why you’re “don’t f*&k her” advice is good. It’s a shame that the law has become an instrument of injustice though:-(
If you’re not proposing that any man has the right to screw a woman, get her pregnant and bears no responsibility whatsoever for the conception of a child, by all means please clarify your position.
…after the act, the man has no further input.
That act was his input! All the legal injustices in the world will not change that.
Problem is people pay for it via taxation. Stop paying. The system is corrupt from the top down. What are they going to do? Jail 10 million people? No, they’re going to crap on themselves because their power eroded and those who are actually the powerful (the TAXPAYER)reclaimed it.
Well, this is sad but so typical.
What is the difference between living off government benefits as opposed to your ex-husband’s income? To the modern American girl, none. Well, except that she doesn’t have to have sex with the government, so I suppose that’s preferable.
The modern American girl has become truly pathetic and worthless. She only gets married to get divorced, and she chooses her soon-to-be ex based on how much she can get in the divorce. She only gets pregnant so she can get child support, whether it’s from her betrayed husband, the biological father or the government she doesn’t care. She votes for big government to be the husband she never wanted to begin with and the father, the provider, she doesn’t want to live with. As long as she gets her benefits so can live the easy life, that’s all that matters to her.
The Suffragettes of the early 1900s would be disgusted. Those women had a legitimate argument. They wanted the right to vote, to an education, to employment. They were not looking for a handout and were not afraid to work. Hell, in WWII it was mostly women in the factories building planes, tanks, and armaments for the men overseas. Rosie the Riveter, and all that.
Also, these women frowned on single motherhood. They did not support divorce or abortion. They held themselves responsible, held each other accountable, and had respect for men.
But that was during a time when being a woman meant something. Today, being a welfare whore is a badge of honor. She really stuck it to him, her husband, didn’t she? She lives high of the hog that is government, doesn’t she? She’s won the game of life, hasn’t she?
Women like my grandmother, my mother, my aunt, and my cousins are rightfully disgusted with these wanna-be women. Every time they ask me why I haven’t gotten married, I ask them, “Have you met a modern American girl lately?” And they nod in agreement.
When I was 14, I needed $800 to go to Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. That would be about $2,400 today. How is a 14-year old kid going to get that kind of money? He can’t get a minimum wage job and delivering newspapers or mowing lawns doesn’t pay anywhere near that. What to do?
I picked watermelon and hoed cabbage fields for the entire summer in the South Texas heat. And I never once complained, because it did afford me the greatest adventure of my life.
Where do you go when you don’t have any money? To work. That’s how I was raised.
But these modern American girls cannot comprehend that. They only want benefits. They don’t want to work. Look at me, I’m a single mother! Pay for my lifestyle.
Give me a break. When men and women stop putting up with this nonsense, maybe things will change. But until such time, the modern American girl is best left ignored.
“…except that she doesn’t have to have sex with the government.”
Wow, Gawain. If that’s your idea of a relationship — a woman who should have sex with you in exchange for your support — do us all a favor and stay single.
BTW? I teach at a working class university in Arkansas, and every single parent (male or female) I know has a job. So do most of the married parents — even the ones who are also on TANF. None of them are living a life of luxury. Most of them have to choose between food, rent, and the power bill, most months, in fact.
Well, it’s true, isn’t it? She doesn’t have to have sex with the government, although I doubt it would bother her very much as long as she gets the benefits.
My idea of a relationship is one of mutual respect, admiration and affection. But that’s not the modern American girl’s idea of a relationship. Hers is disrespect, condemnation and exploitation. If you haven’t figured that out yet, then I feel sorry for your students.
Oh, and have no worry, I have no intention of ever getting married. I realized that before I was 15. Yeah, I’ll take her out, buy her dinner, buy her drinks, pay for a hotel room, but that’s about it. Marriage is out of the question, presumptive paternity and all that.
Do you want me to go down the list? Guys that I know, guys that I grew up with, guys I went to school with, who played that stupid, stupid game. It’s in the dozens. They’re all divorced, they’re all broke, they’re all miserable, some of them are paying child support for children they did not conceive, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.
It happened to my best friend. He started fooling around with this 17 year old. She was the daughter of the owners of the health club where he worked out. I tried to warn him. “I love her! I love her! I want to marry her!” I told him, look, you’re not thinking here. This girl is way too young. She’s immature, neurotic and vindictive. And if you marry her, she is going to hurt you.
He married her. And then made the worst decision imaginable. He moved to California, where the divorce laws are hell. They ought to put a sign at the border that says “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.”
Two kids later, she had everything she needed. She started slapping him around, screaming at him, basically drove him out of his house. Then she divorced him, accused him of all sorts of vile things–all she has to do is say it in court. He abused me! He molested my daughters! He’s a drug addict! He’s an alcoholic!
None of it was true, but that didn’t matter. $40,000 in legal fees, and the court ruled that he had to pay $3000/month in alimony and child support. And he had to undergo mandatory drug testing every month prior to visiting his children.
Seems to me that was her plan from the very beginning.
He called me, distraught and in tears. “I’m getting a divorce. Wah!” I was teaching then and I was on summer vacation, so I told him I would fly out there and cheer him up. He was living in a rented room in a house in San Francisco. One room, that was what he was reduced to.
I got there, looked around, and said, “Okay, the first thing we need to do is get out of here. Take me to the Chamber of Commerce.” I had money, but I’d never been to San Fransciso. We went to lunch, and I planned out our itinerary. Parks, museums, tourist attractions, Alcatraz, hotels, restaurants, everywhere from Monterrey Bay, Margaritaville, to the Santa Rosa hills, the Rennaisance Festival. For two weeks, we went to all the places he had always wanted to go, places that his ex-wife wouldn’t allow him to go to.
I was there for him. She was not. I helped him. She did not. She got her alimony and child support, then threw him under the bus. That was her plan all along.
So, you’ll forgive me if I don’t have a favorable impression of the modern American girl. Yeah, I’m sure there are some good women still out there, but they are few and far between.
The modern American girl is worthless. If she doesn’t like it, she should go home and look in the mirror and ask who made her worthless. I didn’t.
The marriage contract is a license for betrayal, abandonment and bankruptcy. I’d rather have the money, thank you very much.
And if she doesn’t have an ex-husband to pay her bills, well she always has the government. And she doesn’t have to have sex with the government, so that’s a win-win for her. All she has to do is get knocked up by some boy in a bar, and everything will be taken care of. Your tax dollars at work.
To me, she isn’t worth the time of day. All she has to offer me is sex, and debt. I’ll take the former and leave the latter. And now she doesn’t like it. Frankly, I really don’t care.
When a young woman receives money from her employer, she is accountable for work, conscientiousness, and respect to authority. When she receives shared money from a human husband, she is accountable for faithfulness, honesty, and loyalty. When she receives charitable money from her church, she is accountable for expressions of gratitude. When she receives money from BigGov, no expectations are made of her. She is accountable to no one. Government assistance begets stunted growth and poor behavior.
Great points jz, and well put.
Trey
Why do we want to penalize women who can’t find some sap to pay for them in the form of a husband?
Seriously.
Sometimes it’s just the luck of the draw if you can sit home, watch The View, Dr. Phil and Judge Judy, and eat low-fat yoghurt cups and drink diet coke because some chivalrous dink pays for everything.
Frankly, there are less and less men who are that stupid.
I don’t think it’s much of a burden on us – on all of us – to also make sure that women who can’t sell themselves sexually for a long-term support arrangement can also have a worthy life. Just like housewives.
Not every woman is able to prostitute herself to be a housewife. Geeez, have a little understanding, and maybe quit complaining about the few cents that are taken out of your paycheck to create some form of equality with housewives. Housewives like Ivanna Trump and Heather Mills will always have it far better than the government housewives.
Yup.
They can’t even use the argument that *real* housewives have the *dufus* voluntarily paying for them, since so many men are under unwilling alimony orders.
I guess the difference is that the individual men were stupid enough to get into that situation and agree to it. Marriage is potentially financially disastrous for men – I would suggest that they examine the real reason for it.
If you are immature and have to buy sex or intimacy or a “friend” – in the form of marriage – I would suggest that you first read up on “game” and all the stuff associated with it. Women are going to exploit you.
I make a good show of it at company functions and cocktail parties and all the rest of the social functions, and I never let on, but …
… I viscerally hate career housewives and exploitive women.
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear: I hate these parasites – living the easy life, while complaining about damn near everything – more than I hate almost anything else in life.
Get a job, bitch.
I certainly don’t hate career houswives. I look upon them as real women who are committed to their husbands and children. That is not prostitution.
My problem is with the law. It is the law that allows women to be exploitative of men.
Correct me if I’m wrong. She has no access to my property or my money if I do not grant it to her. True or false? She cannot slap me with child support for another man’s bastard if I do not marry her. True or false? She cannot abort my child if she does not conceive it first. True or false? She cannot change her mind for any reason or no reason, and walk away with half of everything, if I do not marry her. True or false?
The problem is with the law. The marriage contract is exploitative of men and the court system is discriminatory against men. I understood this when I was 15. Why am I the only one talking about it today, 40 years later?
The law allows women to be exploitative of men. So, change the law, man. Or stop complaining about it.
Otherwise, you’ll never be anything more than a dupe in a medieval romance. And it isn’t even a romance. It’s exploitation and discrimination. When you guys get a clue, let me know. I figured it out decades ago.
All she has to offer me is sex. She is not going to be my life partner, she is not going to be my helpmate, and she is not going to be the mother to raise my children. She’s too wrapped up in her career for that. She’s too busy running off to work so she can afford to pay some child care worker to raise her children.
I am not about to agree to that. I will support and raise any child that I conceive, after a paternity test. But I am not about to support her in her desperate appeal for supremacy.
She’s entitled to dinner, drinks and a hotel. I will give her that. Otherwise, she’s on her own.
She has an education, she has a job, she has a career, she earns a salary, she has money. What does she need me for?
Oh, that’s right, guaranteed child support. Sorry, but absent a paternity test, I say NO.
And now she doesn’t like it. I really couldn’t care less. She lives her own life. I live mine. The thing is, and this is the real problem here, is that I don’t live my life to service hers.
When women and men, but especially women and men, start to address the real problem, which is the law, then maybe we can come to an agreement. I doubt it though, given the attitudes of these women and men, and their ignorance of the law.
“I look upon them as real women who are committed to their husbands and children.”
—
With a divorce rate approaching 50%, obviously not all of them are committed to their husbands, Bunky.
But you are hypnotized like most of the rest of society with the romantic comedy and media view of these women. And these women promote it themselves – many are even halfway-decent actresses – because if the romantic crap is all stripped away, and they couldn’t blind the man in the beginning with sex – the whole unfair nature of the wage slave and the career sit-on-her-fat-ass housewife would be apparent.
Watch what real housewives do under stress. Not what they spout to persuade others and themselves.
Romantic fiction: “We’re a team. Why, I would take a job at McDonald’s or anywhere if I had to because he lost his job.”
Reality: Guy loses his professional life and has to take a job as a house painter for far less money. Wife moves back to parents, divorces the now-loser and has a new rich guy to pay for her in 6 months.
Most of society is blinded, and this is one of the reasons that so many divorced chivalrous men “never saw it coming”. I have also very often heard the view, “I never believed she could be this way; it’s like she’s a different person”. What that means, I think, is that chivalrous men really have no clue as to what is going on, and they are letting the housepig sit home in luxury based on a false view of the world.
I also think that – in some cases, certainly not all – the chivalrous guy wants to keep her home because he thinks that if she got a job where she was talking to men all day she would cheat on him or even leave him for another guy. And since she can’t really earn diddly-squat anyway, keeping her home watching TV is the only way to go.
Yeah, that’s a great reason. Sounds like true romantic love to me.
The problem here is not chivalry. That’s an outdated notion. The problem here is with the law.
Chivalry is the knight’s code. It has to do with the Cult of Mary, the Virgin Queen and all that. The man has to go on perilous and testing quest to win her love.
Forget about that. I don’t have anything to prove to her or anyone. I’m a man. I have an education. I have a job. I have a career. I make money. So does she. What is the real problem here then?
It’s the law. No way am I going to agree to presumptive paternity, abortion on demand, and no fault divorce. She doesn’t like it? Well, then, when she starts talking about changing the law, I’ll start to listen.
Until such time, she’s worth dinner, drinks and a hotel room, for one night.
It’s not about chivalry, defending the virgin, winning her love. Grow up, man.
These are not the Middle Ages, but the law is the law. I am held accountable under the law, as it is written.
Hey, I just bought her dinner and drinks, paid for one night at a hotel. I am not responsible for every child she conceives. I am only responsible for every child that I conceive, after a paterntity test.
Marriage is out of the question. She does’nt like it? I really don’t care. When she’s serious about changing the law, then I’ll listen to what she has to say.
Until such time, she’s worth a one night stand in a hotel. And now she doesn’t like it. Well, I didn’t make her worthless. She did that all on her own.
Change the law or STF up.
http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2012/12/in-defence-of-leanne-broderick-single.html?m=1
Maybe we shouldn’t worry about how the Brits live.