Rewarding single mothers encourages single mothers? You don’t say!


——————————————————————————–

28 August 2006

How handouts tempt single mothers

Generous state handouts encourage women to become single mothers, research has found.

It took “research” to figure this out? Fucking hell.

Of 14 European countries in the study, the UK had by far the highest proportion of young single mother households – 8 per cent. They received an average of £3,546 a year each in benefits, the second-largest handout.

..

Researchers found that a benefit increase of £675 a year was matched by a rise in single mothers of two per cent.

The government loves single mothers though. They’re dependent on the government, and governments find it easier to get those dependent on them to do what they’re told.

Quicker than a speeding bullet, in comes some twat from the Tories:

But Tory spokesman Philip Hammond said: “We have to be careful with this claim of a causal link. When we are giving benefit to the single mother, we are not giving it to her, it’s to the child. if you want to end child poverty, then you have to give benefit.”

Translation: “It’s for the cheeeewldren! If you want to cut benefits for single mother skanks, you’ll be harming kiddies! That means you hate kids. You don’t hate kids, do you?”

End all subsidies and benefits and Child Support to single mothers. It’s that simple. That way you’ll rapidly halt young women whelping bastards all over the place. If it means the current generation of single mums and their bastards starve, so be it. Fuck ’em.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 11:38 AM
——————————————————————————–

At 12:08 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

Haven’t you and I been saying this for a long time Duncan? I don’t know how much this survey cost but we could have come up the same answer free. Political parties love voters to be financially dependent on government because that way the politicians can control the population. It’s just more Big-Government.

——————————————————————————–

At 1:03 PM, FredXblog said…

Good piece Duncan

The government just love that female vote don’t they lol.

And those lazy, large hooped-earing wearing, chain-smoking louts just love those handouts.

But that’s corruption for you isn’t it.

——————————————————————————–

At 6:52 PM, nevo said…

Last week I watched in channel five a program about how matriarchal England has become possible. I only watched the last half of it but, it was then when they were making the most interesting point.
There was a woman in her lates thirties early forties which was a proud single mother of three boys from three different marriages.
When the interviewer asked this question: In Christmas, do you all get together?
She answered: YES
and does it work well?
She answered: YES very well indeed.
This is hardly surprising, since, she must be receiving three different payments from each father without having to put up with any of these men around the house or having sex with any of them. So she must be speaking about herself and her healthy bank account.
I do not believe for one minute that it works for the children though.
My two children dispute and fight on just about everything in the house. They are very jealous of each other’s presents.
With three from different fathers must be an absolute nightmare.
Full Brotherhood bond do not exist for starters, since, every child will defend his own father and the presents they get for Christmas. If anything they will fight over on who’s father is best (my children do not have this handicap beause they have their own father)and as they grow older, this disputes will intensify and become nastier.
She can lie through her beautiful smile, but intelligent people will never believe a word of it. They know better.
Financing single motherhood helps no one. Children with no father or an occasional one are likely to develop into some sort of misfist. Or, if they manage to keep their wits with them they will see marriage for the sham that it is today.
I agree child poverty should be helped. But not to the point where it rewards and encourages hard up young girls to take this way out of their problems. It will only help to keep prisons full to the hilt.

NEVO

——————————————————————————–

At 7:11 PM, Anonymous said…

The people who originally designed these laws want to destroy the family unit by replacing a man with a government check paid for by all taxpayers.

In America, over half births to black women are to unmarried women. They know they get section 8 housing (even if it is a slum), food for the child (WIC program), food stamps, and AFDC or Aid to Families with Dependent Children checks. So free housing, food, and a bit of money all because she got knocked up. Surprise!!!!! lots of them get knocked up on purpose and will sleep with any man who can give them a baby. I might also mention they get child support…………………………………..

You used to have to get married to have a child back when right was right. We should have orphanages for children whose single skank mummma cant afford them. We need to take the incentives out of shitty behaviour.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:31 PM, Fem Hater said…

I got a plan for the government, why not take the kids away from the single mother who need to be on freaking welfare and stick them in a hostile, it would be a lot cheaper they would only have to pay for the kid not the kid and mother plus they won`t pick up the bad habits from the mother such as having kids when you can`t even feed them, of course the feminist will scream that kids needs to live at home with his mother but they don`t seem to care about this when it comes down to fathers or when a women has career and wants to stick the kids in a daycare

——————————————————————————–

At 7:49 PM, Anonymous said…

Holy crap 8%, but that is households which pretty much means i guess 8% of the population men and women in other words 16% percent of women are single mothers, which is 1 in 6 women are single mothers, holy shit that is a lot, but then that does not even exclude women who kids are grown up already and not capable of having kids.Now if i take a guess and assume half the women alive are over 50 and not capable of kids or are mature already that means 32% of women who marriage material have kids already,in other words a man looking to get married has to exclude 1 out of 3 women which is a shit load, that is not even mentioning the other problems such as career chicks or feminists, golddiggers etc…. Yip any man looking to get married these days is screwed. The entire western nation is doomed!!!!!!!!
So live it up men the end of civilization is near

——————————————————————————–

At 9:48 AM, Tony Sclafani said…

“The people who originally designed these laws want to destroy the family unit by replacing a man with a government check paid for by all taxpayers.”

A quick look at feminist writing from the late 1960s and early 1970s will reveal this was in fact the case. This largely originated in the US.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:17 PM, Anonymous said…

Basically, the hidden agenda behind all the social activism of the 60s was to destroy our nuclear families so that we would become dependent upon the future Matriarx/NW0.

How do you enslave the people? Destroy their families and replace those support systems with the Feds. People become slaves to whomever they grow dependent upon…

Our modern welfare state was thus started in the 60s with LBJ’s Great Society programs. It was “supposed to” help the underclass and Blacks…but now 2/3 of Black babies are born to single mamas and 1/3 of ALL American babies are as well!

YES, we are SO PWNED now! Hook, line & SINKER glug glug glug…!

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: