Skip to comments.McGurn: How Obama's 'Life of Julia' Prevailed
Posted on 11/27/2012 8:00:15 AM PST by rightwingintelligentsia
The name of the program now escapes me. Several months ago, while flipping channels with the remote, I stopped on an MTV show about a working mom whose whole life was upended when her partner announced that he was splitting. It caught my attention because this mother lived in a nice apartment that looked like one in my suburban New Jersey town, and she was applying for food stamps.
This wasn't your caricature "taker"the woman had a real job. With her partner leaving, however, she could no longer afford the rent, and she would have trouble providing for her two young boys alone. As she walked up to an office to sign up for food stamps, she said something like, "I can't believe I am applying for public assistance."
Her situation provoked two questions. First, how could her boyfriend just abandon his sons without having to pay child support? Second, what is the conservative response to a woman who finds herself in this situation?
The show comes back to me in wake of the thumping Mitt Romney took in the presidential election among the demographic this mom represents: unmarried women. During the 2012 campaign, we conservatives had great sport at the expense of the Obama administration's "Life of Julia"a cartoon explaining the cradle-to-grave government programs that provided for Julia's happy and successful life.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
She let him.
In the old days the father would be found and given a good ‘education’ in responsibility
If he could not be found then the churches in the neighbor hood would help, and they would do it at one-third the cost that the government does it.
And people would still have the OTHER two thirds of THEIR money so they could actually hire this woman in a job, if she could be productive
Free money wins. No one thinks they have to pay their share of the tab. I am for letting the entire tax portion of the fiscal cliff go away to get more people back on the tax roles...then replace it with less people paying zero or getting more OUT of the tax system...our side needs to consider this an opportunity for reform. We hold the House majority and need to talk to the American people about ideas, not process.
Unions destroyed the work ethic, public education poisoned the minds of our children, regulation rewarded cronyism, welfare destroyed the church and family and now, THEY HAVE WON!
Just look around, we are a mess, our children stupid our men cuckolded by Uncle Sam and all of us stifled by regulation so that our criminal class of politicians can weild power.
We are the United Julias of America.
When the cold of winter comes
starless night will cover day.
In the veiling of the sun
we will walk in bitter rain.
One of the best concise statements ever made here.
Poverty and deep disgrace
Stares from every human face
And the Sea of Pity lies
Locked and frozen in each eye.
The left has had two major objectives this past century: destroy the limits the Constitution places on the expansion of the state, and destroy the institution of marriage. They succeeded. Women can no longer rely on husbands, so they rely on the state. Because they rely on the state, they support the expansion of the state.
Marriage was the great civil bulwark against tyranny, which is why the left has been so determined and assiduous in undermining it. So-called "gay marriage" will witness its ultimate demise as a legal institution. The state will then have a free hand to intrude into any sort of domestic or civil arrangement in order to engineer it to the liking of "progressives." Oh the irony of those "Julias" who insist the the government not restrict their unfettered "right" to kill the child in their womb, while proclaiming the "right" that that same government provide them with free birth control. But while logically at odds, they are linked in their goal of destroying the great purpose of marriage, at least as far as the state is concerned, which is bringing the next generation of citizens into being in a household where both a mother and father support and guide their offspring. Children raised by dependent mothers will themselves make good dependents of an ever-widening nanny state. What they will not be is free citizens jealous to preserve their liberties.
Steven Speilberg was hosting fundraisers for Obama. Now, Speilberg is set to make hundreds of millions before the new year. Speilberg is rich, yet he supports the Democrats. I thought the rich are all Republicans? I guess that’s not true. Why? Since Speilberg supports the Democrats, he should be happy if they confiscate all his wealth. He didn’t make those movies! We did!
How could she have stopped him?
The MTV mom is a case study in the problems that come from abandoning traditional values. Why does this woman have children out of marriage? Why is she living with and depending on someone without marriage? That is what left her vulnerable. She DID STUPID THINGS. What the left does is fix the problems caused by stupidity and immorality. My solution is not to punish these stupid slutty women, it is simply not to offer them any assistance. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. In the short term this will be painful but in the long term people will do what is in their best interest and there will be MANY fewer irresponsible people.
I’m too lazy to read this whole article, and maybe it is not explained there, but perhaps the “boyfriend” who left was NOT the father of the children. Our gentle author lacks an understanding of today’s women if that idea did not occur to him.
Many great insights in this thread...
How about not making babies with a guy who won’t marry you?
No, the question is why she slept with him without marrying him. And then, the question is why she didn't use birth control. And the third question is why she hasn't sued him or whoever was the father of her children for child support.
Second, what is the conservative response to a woman who finds herself in this situation?
Find Jesus. Read the ten commandments. Go home to her mom's house to live. Find a job. Food stamps while living in a nice apartment? Who's paying the rent? US?
My favorite quip about this was when Jesse Ventura, in his pre nutcase days, was guv of Minnesota and cut back college aid for single moms. One mom complained, and he said, why should she get a free education while others who played by the rules didn't?
No hanky panky without the ring.
She had TWO kids, for bog's sake. It's not like a one night stand.
Do you really think a ring is going to stop a guy from leaving? Or keep a woman from leaving for that matter?