Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Child support: Political scam? HBR Talk 298

Transcript

Child support: Political scam? HBR Talk 298 · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Hello, and welcome to the HBr Talk two ninety eight. We talked about
• 0:04
  dreams. We're gonna be talking about some things we talked about last week in
• 0:09
  a little a little different angle, a little more steps. We're going to
• 0:14
  consider the question what if everything you know about cloud support is a lot?
• 0:19
  But before we get into all that, first, we gotta do what we
• 0:23
  gotta do platforms. As always, Honey Badger Radio dished out a mortgage board
• 0:27
  if thought provosting discussions and as experiences both recently long Ass demonstrated the provoked thoughts
• 0:33
  are fighting back. They've made it clearly for people like us relying on third
• 0:37
  party seayment platforms like Patreon, hookund our work is setting on seni or building
• 0:42
  our house in the path of a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this,
• 0:46
  we strongly support encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for us
• 0:51
  to feed the Badger dot Com the most stable way to help us out,
• 0:54
  and if you want to tip us directly instead of relying on any social media
• 0:58
  platform fijar, the link for that is feed the Badger dot Com slash to
• 1:03
  get the pipture and as always, the same risks applies to our social media
• 1:07
  platform, which is why you should further provoke the thoughtfullye by tracking our thought
• 1:11
  provoking recessions on Honey Badger Brigade dot com, where you can find your way
• 1:15
  to all of our content, as well as seed the Badger dot Com in
• 1:19
  the drop down at the top space. So two weeks ago, we started
• 1:23
  talking about the issue of Chyle support the United States in response to existing discussion
• 1:30
  about the Vey Granos fummies comments on the subject, and we were looking at
• 1:36
  some history last week involving these very organic feminist academic revolutions and it's totally legitimate
• 1:44
  institutional, corporate and government sponsors. So to just to briefly for anybody that
• 1:52
  wasn't listening to the live stream last week, to give you heads up on
• 1:56
  that, if you go back to our Badger livesa you could see the whole
• 2:02
  stream. But we talked about an old article that made a bunch of predictions
• 2:07
  and discussed a bunch of things going on at the time. This is from
• 2:12
  nineteen ninety two in regards to the spread of women's studies as an academic area
• 2:23
  of study, starting with just women's studies classes and moving on from classes to
• 2:30
  an entire area of study, an entire major, and then it's permeation of
• 2:38
  other areas of academic studies. And we were looking at things like how much
• 2:46
  funding it got, where that funding came from, how involved the government was
• 2:51
  in making this happen, and so on, And it makes it pretty obvious,
• 2:53
  and we'll continue going over that next week on live stream. But they
• 3:00
  made it pretty obvious that this was not just something that happened. You know,
• 3:07
  Feminism isn't just an underdog movement that became more and more popular because of
• 3:15
  how bad things were for women. There was actually a whole series of steps
• 3:21
  that took place that were, you know, in in cahoots with the government,
• 3:24
  in cahoots with establishments, charitable organizations that basically exist to promote things the
• 3:31
  establishment wants to happen all along. And when we've talked about in the past,
• 3:38
  the long March through the Institute, this has been a manifestation of that
• 3:46
  the whole time. Feminism has been a manifestation of that the whole time.
• 3:50
  So with that in mind, we're going to get into the issues in the
• 3:58
  child support enforced MINT system. I'm actually going to add another link because I
• 4:02
  wrote about this. I have been trying to get this open, and I
• 4:09
  think it's not a problem with the article. It's a problem with my dinosaur
• 4:14
  of a desktop computer which I didn't want to update because I can still use
• 4:21
  it. It can't make me update past system eight because it's not it can't
• 4:30
  update past estimates. It's not capable, so and I like, I'm like
• 4:36
  not having having to use systems in on it. But I think it's getting
• 4:41
  to where it's not working well with the Internet. So I have written about
• 4:47
  this before a little bit in regard to like some as I'll tell you,
• 4:53
  you know, the patriarchy is the reason that men are discriminated against the family
• 4:56
  court. But actually there's been a big push by feminists historically to make that
• 5:03
  happen. So the article is titled the Feminist Cruciade against Fatherhood on Honey Badger
• 5:10
  Brigade dot com. It's originally I published it on Breaking the Glasses, my
• 5:15
  blogspot blog, and and there you go. But what I really want to
• 5:24
  start out looking at in this discussion is the men's rights post. So let's
• 5:32
  get into the first link. Title title four D The Social Security, Accident
• 5:42
  Role and Child Factors has an interesting bit and I look at the section that
• 5:48
  is mentioned here. This is by a redditor who goes by Chracy Morgan Freeman,
• 5:54
  which I think is absolutely fabulous. And what are you talking about here
• 6:01
  is it's kind of interesting. We hear all the time from feminist and arguments
• 6:09
  when we start talking about the concept of colonel surrender that child supporters for the
• 6:15
  child, not for the mother. And you're a deadbeat if you even considered
• 6:20
  the idea of colonel surrender, because obviously you just don't want to You just
• 6:28
  don't want to pay your bills, like you just don't care about your child.
• 6:31
  Blah blah blah. That's the whole thing. That's the whole argument.
• 6:38
  And in the meantime, the person collecting the money is not the child.
• 6:44
  So the post is actually pretty short. And what he's written here is I
• 6:47
  know there's been occasional discussions about Title for D and it's impact on child custody,
• 6:51
  but I thought showing the law itself and some particular aspects of it would
• 6:56
  illuminate exactly how it undermines a father's rights and really parents and children's rights.
• 7:01
  It links to the law and to the two relevant sections, and the reason
• 7:06
  This is relevant to the argument that child support is for the child is how
• 7:10
  this law is administered. It's one of the central cogs, he says,
• 7:14
  that drives child custody and child support arrangements. Essentially, the federal government reimburses
• 7:20
  states for having to research, prosecute, determine, and enforce child support.
• 7:26
  But also in section five hundred and forty eight, it incentivizes child support enforcement
• 7:32
  by paying states an amount equal to a portion of the support award itself.
• 7:43
  So what that means is when the government of your state, when you're you
• 7:50
  know, California government, Ohio government, Florida government, Texas, Illinois,
• 7:55
  Indiana, wherever, when it goes after a man for support on behalf of
• 8:03
  his ex wife for his children. The state spends however much money administrating that
• 8:13
  right, if the guy has to pay, if he's legally required to pay
• 8:18
  through the state, that money. Essentially, the cost of having a child
• 8:26
  support enforcement agency is that money having a child case worker handled that case.
• 8:35
  Just having that case assigned to a caseworker generates. Then here's how much money
• 8:41
  we're spending on this case. All she has to do is spend time filing
• 8:46
  paperwork in regard to this case, even if the guy is paying, even
• 8:50
  if he's never in arrears, even if his wages are garnished and automatically sent
• 8:58
  through the state to his wife, there's still a on paper, there's still
• 9:05
  a sort of a fake. These are our expenses generated, and the federal
• 9:09
  government reimburses that. Right. So, if they have to establish paternity,
• 9:16
  if they have to find out who the father is, if they have to
• 9:20
  prove an in court who the father is, right, if they have to
• 9:24
  go through several guys because she's naming fathers and actually they're not the father.
• 9:31
  You know, if the state has to do the Mariripovich thing, if the
• 9:37
  state has to go to court. You know, if the father says,
• 9:43
  my child support is based on sixty thousand dollars a year, but I'm only
• 9:46
  making thirty thousand dollars and I never said i was making sixty thousand dollars,
• 9:50
  So I'm going to file for a reduction, and the state fights that that
• 9:56
  generates expense. The federal government pays all of that out of your tax dollars.
• 10:03
  And then then because the state generated these expenses and the federal government has
• 10:11
  paid these expenses, the amount of the guy pays. The federal government pays
• 10:18
  the states a bounty equal to part of the support award. So how much
• 10:26
  he owes what his obligation is? Like, does that kind of tell you,
• 10:33
  guys something kind of the kind of stuff that I'm numb to at this
• 10:41
  point. Well, you think about it. One of the arguments we get.
• 10:46
  One of the things that we get told over and over again is that
• 10:50
  you know, I've asked this a bunch of times. Right, if child
• 10:54
  support us for the child, then why when the mother receives public assists Since
• 11:00
  does the state keep the child support in return for it? If it's for
• 11:07
  the child, why is the state billing the child for the mother's expenses?
• 11:13
  Right? And I get told over in Oregon, Well, it's reimbursement to
• 11:16
  the state. It pays the state back for the money the state is paying
• 11:22
  to the mother for the care of the child. Except it doesn't because the
• 11:31
  state is paying itself. The state is taxing you to pay for all of
• 11:37
  these systems. Yeah, it goes to pay the salaries of the people who
• 11:43
  push the paperwork, you know what I mean That the clerks and all the
• 11:48
  lower level people within the system. That's what's really happening, you know,
• 11:52
  I mean, it's beyond ridiculous because why does any of this really need to
• 12:00
  be I think it's really overblown, you know what I mean, it's the
• 12:07
  cost cannot be as exponential as they're getting away with charging for these services.
• 12:16
  But you know, hey, it's it's for the good of the child,
• 12:22
  right well where where they're they're just lining their own pockets with this money.
• 12:28
  Yeah, so it's in the best interests of the child, do you see,
• 12:31
  because it's not your child, it's our child. My gosh. Yeah.
• 12:37
  So let's take a look at this in terms of let's say there's a
• 12:41
  real couple Bob and Sue, and Bob and Sue have you know a child,
• 12:48
  Bobby Bobby Jr. Right, Bob and Sue maybe never marry, maybe
• 12:54
  they get divorced, whatever, but they make their own custody arrangements, so
• 13:01
  they don't go to court, they don't fight it out. They make a
• 13:07
  legal agreement. And in that legal agreement, Bob is going to pay Sue
• 13:15
  x amount of dollars let's say one thousand dollars a month based on Bob's income.
• 13:22
  And they've used the formula for their state to determine that the state expects
• 13:26
  Bob to pay one thousand dollars a month. In a state like Ohio,
• 13:31
  and there are several other states that did this because of the changes to Title
• 13:39
  four D in two thousand, when the federal government added a bunch of these
• 13:46
  incentives, he's required to pay through the state. He cannot just hand to
• 13:52
  one thousand dollars every month and say this is your your child support payment for
• 13:58
  Bobby Junior. To make sure that you know you can get him the things
• 14:01
  that are over and above the expenses you'd be spending if you lived by yourself
• 14:05
  and didn't have him. And so he has to pay it through the state.
• 14:11
  He has to take it to the child Support enforcement agency, and there
• 14:15
  has to be a case worker. It's not not optional. He has to
• 14:20
  pay it there or he has to have his wages garnished. And some states
• 14:26
  like Ohio don't even give you the option to not do wage garnishment if your
• 14:33
  employer is big enough that wage garnishment wouldn't be considered a big problem for them,
• 14:41
  Like if you're working for, you know, a family business and the
• 14:46
  head of the household has to do all that they don't do they don't make
• 14:50
  you do it. But if you're working for say McDonald's, they have to
• 14:54
  garnish your wages. But if you're working for McDonald's, you're not paying a
• 14:58
  thousand dollar a month for one kid. If you're working for a factory,
• 15:03
  if you're working for any organized business, any big business, they're going to
• 15:07
  have to do that, right. That garnishment, the paperwork for that,
• 15:11
  that goes through the Child Support Enforcement agency. So at the very least,
• 15:16
  a couple that never argues about child support that follows the formula the state says,
• 15:22
  where there's nobody contesting it or anything, and the state doesn't have to
• 15:30
  do anything except that the state has passed laws forcing you to engage with the
• 15:35
  child support Enforcement agency in order to do your your child support duty according to
• 15:43
  the state, like they still on paper, there are expenses that they can
• 15:50
  claim that we're generated by your case, but that worker, that worker already
• 15:58
  has a job. The worker is already doing this with cases where there are
• 16:04
  disputes and where somebody's payments have to be monitored and so on, where the
• 16:12
  child support obligation is created by the welfare payments that the mother is receiving,
• 16:19
  like and so on those cases they're already getting paid for. But now even
• 16:27
  though it is completely unnecessary for the state to handle your child support case because
• 16:33
  you're willingly paying, you know, Sue one thousand dollars a month for the
• 16:40
  care of Bobby Jr. When he's not staying with you. Now the taxpayers
• 16:47
  are paying for the state to track you doing that, where there's literally just
• 16:57
  a piece of paper generated every week that says, yep, you paid it.
• 17:06
  So it kind of makes you wonder about the purpose there, right,
• 17:11
  So he goes on this incentivizes state municipal governments to break up families and not
• 17:18
  only a ward child support, but especially award custody to the lower earner because
• 17:22
  support awards are based on income, not the actual cost of caring for the
• 17:27
  child. To ensure the most incentive pay via this law as possible. So
• 17:36
  in other words, it's to the state's advantage. Say Bob and Sue are
• 17:41
  married and they want to get divorced, it's to the state's advantage to place
• 17:48
  Bobby Jr. With whoever makes the lowest income. So the state can then
• 17:55
  say, well, we have to collect child support from the other parent,
• 18:00
  even if the other parents cooperative, the state gets paid, there's still paperwork
• 18:03
  generated. The state can claim that there are hours dedicated and expenses dedicated to
• 18:08
  this case whom I hear in the background with somebody wanted to speak. Sorry,
• 18:18
  that was the cat purring. Apparently the cat really likes child support.
• 18:26
  I do not. You know, it angers me because you know, for
• 18:30
  someone like me, who doesn't have kids and will never have kids, to
• 18:34
  know that I have to pay for this ship drives me up the wall just
• 18:40
  a little bit, just a bit. It's the same problem as the welfare
• 18:45
  state. People will say, well, how are people supposed to operate without
• 18:48
  the government to help them out. Well, they managed it for a pretty
• 18:53
  bloody long time without the state helping them out. They you know, I
• 19:00
  say, kept the fucking legs together. And you know, when they went
• 19:04
  incentivized to have children at the expense of everyone else, they considered the idea
• 19:11
  that having children would be an expense on themselves, and and so and so
• 19:15
  they they exercised some self control. And it's it's what I say, it's
• 19:23
  like the welfare state. It is the welfare state. It's you know,
• 19:27
  yeah, don't worry, ladies, whatever decision you make Uncle Sam will will
• 19:33
  bail you out, or Daddy government in any given country will bail you out,
• 19:37
  so you don't need to exercise self control. Will just steal money from
• 19:42
  men and give it to you, and and everything will be fine except for
• 19:49
  the for the rapid decline of civilization. That's that's you know, you've got
• 19:55
  to cracker through eggs to make it online, aren't you. Mh. It's
• 19:57
  it's quite a system when you really think about it, because it doesn't change
• 20:06
  necessarily how much child support is being paid. It just changes how many taxes
• 20:12
  are being dedicated to its supposed collection. Right, so we're looking at what
• 20:18
  we're looking at here. This is why I call it a political scam.
• 20:22
  Why I'm questioning is this a political scam? Because the public gets this idea
• 20:27
  that welfare payments are super high because dads aren't paying their child support. It
• 20:33
  takes the heat off of the actual problem, which is that we have a
• 20:41
  bunch of social welfare problems, or programs that problems is probably more accurate,
• 20:48
  programs that essentially pay women to make stupid choices, and of course when they
• 20:55
  make those stupid choices, it creates a perpetuating self perpetuating cycle because it makes
• 21:02
  children more likely to grow up to rely on this system. Right, so
• 21:07
  we have this situation with this system. It's really bad, and then we
• 21:11
  find out then we find out that the state is actually taxing you to pay
• 21:22
  the expenses of this and from the sound of it, for every dollar that
• 21:26
  they collect, they're spending more than a dollar in tax incentives, like in
• 21:36
  taxpayer funded incentives to seem of it counterproductive. Can Can you imagine if you
• 21:48
  told your boss that you wanted to start a program at work to save the
• 21:53
  company money, but for every dollar you save to the company in the area
• 22:00
  that you were talking about saving, the company was spending more than a dollar
• 22:07
  in shenanigans to make that savings happen. We're gonna cut costs on this material
• 22:17
  that we buy, but we're gonna actually have to pay people to do more
• 22:22
  work in order to use this material, and so it's going to cost us.
• 22:26
  The material is only going to cost us ninety eight percent of what the
• 22:33
  material costs that we were already using, but we're gonna spend that much plus
• 22:38
  another fifty percent paying people to make this other material work. What would your
• 22:45
  boss tell you? They would save money instantly by firing your ass. We
• 22:52
  can say thirty thousand dollars a year by firing this dipshit. Yeah, it's
• 23:00
  it's just it's pathetic. And and I look at this and I realized this
• 23:04
  has been going on for a very long time. So if we flip over
• 23:11
  to the let's see it's the scribt. Nope, it's not the script link.
• 23:19
  It's the a Child's Right link. You'll see there's a bunch of links
• 23:25
  on this page. So the link is the one that says uh Child's Right
• 23:32
  dot type uh typepad dot com and and then it has the rest of the
• 23:38
  link in an equal time with both parents, both fit parents, and the
• 23:47
  the site itself, the Child's Right dot net is is a pretty decent resource
• 23:51
  for information, although it's a lot of what is on it is is older
• 23:57
  and it's mostly dedicated toward Michigan, so you won't see a lot of other
• 24:03
  states specific income or information on this right and I managed to get some of
• 24:11
  the other links from this page as well. But it has a quote at
• 24:21
  the top from Phyllis Schlaffley which she's six to one, a half dozen the
• 24:26
  other on some issues that we've talked about, but when it comes to this,
• 24:30
  this is quite an interesting point. She says, the federal incentives drive
• 24:34
  the system. The more divorces and the higher the child support guidelines are set
• 24:40
  and enforced, no matter how unreasonable. The more money the state bureaucracy collects
• 24:45
  from the Feds follow the money, the less time that non custodial parents,
• 24:52
  usually fathers, are permitted to be with their children, the more child support
• 24:57
  they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to
• 25:02
  the states for collecting the money. So it is literally a bounty. It's
• 25:10
  like bounty hunter pay for collecting the heads of the fathers, their financial heads,
• 25:18
  for breaking up their families and collecting their heads. And if you scroll
• 25:26
  down to I think it's the history of child Support the title for d in
• 25:33
  the US. Now, this doesn't actually give all of the history. This
• 25:38
  was posted long enough ago that if I remember, the history only goes up
• 25:41
  to like nineteen ninety six, so it doesn't even include the two thousand Contract
• 25:49
  on America. Contract for America. I always call it the Contract on America
• 25:55
  because that kind of it was kind of in some way like the federal government
• 26:00
  taking out a hit on people of low income. There was and there was
• 26:07
  some good intention from the public in regard to supporting this, but I don't
• 26:14
  think that the politicians were well intentioned. So if you look at the history
• 26:19
  of child support enforcement, it doesn't start in the United States because the United
• 26:25
  States, of course started as colonies. It goes back to a pre nineteenth
• 26:32
  century law in the UK, and so it references something called the poor Laws,
• 26:41
  and the English poor law is also known as the Elizabethan Poor Laws.
• 26:45
  So I'm going to give a really brief thing about that. It's not described
• 26:48
  very well here, but during this is during the era right after the Black
• 26:57
  Plague that wiped out like a third of the population, and for the understanding
• 27:07
  of people in the United States, the UK, England was divided into parishes
• 27:15
  local communities, like similar to how your state is divided into counties or how
• 27:25
  your politicians has sort of gerrymandered your voting areas so that you have districts and
• 27:30
  so on. And there were a bunch of laws in regard to that that
• 27:37
  governed how people could move and where you could live and work and so on.
• 27:41
  So you couldn't just if you lived in one parish or district. You
• 27:48
  couldn't just go to another one and start participating in the whole economic sphere there.
• 27:56
  You had to get permission, that was one thing. And if you
• 28:03
  were impoverished, and a lot of people actually were after the plague totally wiped
• 28:10
  out financially, you had options like the church could help you a little bit.
• 28:19
  There were workhouses. Workhouses were like there were poorhouses. Basically you went
• 28:25
  there, you lived there in a very communal setting, like a homeless shelter,
• 28:30
  where you have a whole room full of beds, and everybody that lived
• 28:34
  there slept in one of those beds. Each each person slept in one of
• 28:37
  those beds. It was you didn't have any kind of you know, privacy
• 28:44
  or any kind of individuality in those areas. And you had work that you
• 28:48
  had to do. You worked very long hours, and it was to pay
• 28:52
  for your keep. You got food and you got shelter and maybe clothing,
• 28:59
  and that was it it. But one of the earliest poor laws that that's
• 29:07
  related to child support involved if you had a family member that the government could
• 29:14
  track down and get in touch with, they would they would amass they would
• 29:22
  add up basically how much they spent on your food and uh, they would
• 29:26
  attribute a level of rent that you owed for being in his workhouse. They
• 29:33
  would go after that person for that money. And it was to encourage,
• 29:37
  like if you had a cousin that was impoverished, it was an increa.
• 29:42
  It was to encourage the citizen to ask the cousin to come live with them
• 29:47
  instead of allowing them to be a ward of the state. Same was done
• 29:52
  with with children and and but it was also done with adults. Right,
• 29:56
  So you have this historical eye that this protects the state coffers from being drained
• 30:04
  by the poor. If you go farther back from that, you end up
• 30:11
  at King Henry the eighth An the dissolution of the monasteries, the devastation really
• 30:22
  of the monasteries. They he broke them up and took out all of the
• 30:29
  money that they were using to support poor. And that's pretty much why the
• 30:33
  state became the terror I guess for the poor. So it's really the state's
• 30:41
  fault that state ended up dealing with this because before the before the king wanted
• 30:47
  a divorce, the church took care of this and gave people assistance in finding
• 30:56
  employment and everything. So so you have that as sort of the background.
• 31:03
  Everything that Republicans pretended was new in two thousand during the Contract on America was
• 31:15
  done in the seventeenth century poor laws. They would go after fathers of children
• 31:23
  born to unwed mothers, and of course they didn't have DNA testing. So
• 31:29
  she said he was the father, he would have to prove he wasn't,
• 31:33
  like, prove that he was somewhere else during the time of conception. Basically
• 31:37
  the only way he could do that or prove that somebody else was the father
• 31:42
  in order to get out of being taken for the state, taken by the
• 31:49
  state for that money, or you know, he'd have to marry her.
• 31:55
  That continued into colonial United States. There was child support law during even the
• 32:05
  colonial times. There was child support law when the country formed. There was
• 32:08
  child support law during the eighteen hundreds. During the nineteen hundreds, it existed
• 32:15
  for circumstances under which the mother had custody or the parents never married, but
• 32:23
  it wasn't something that you would see, say and divorce. For the most
• 32:30
  part, the father was given custody. Fathers didn't get child support. Fathers
• 32:37
  were expected to support the child. So that's sort of I know, I'm
• 32:44
  not going to go over all of this, but this sort of gives you
• 32:52
  an idea of what we're looking at in history. Was it all changes in
• 32:59
  the middle of the nineteenth century when when the courts began flipping from paternal custody
• 33:14
  after divorce to maternal custody. And during the nineteenth century, American courts sort
• 33:27
  of saw there being a problem of dependency among single mothers and their children,
• 33:31
  and they created a legally enforcement child support duty and enforceable child support duty.
• 33:39
  So basically, now the federal government could enforce or the state government could enforce
• 33:46
  on the father you have this amount that you have to pay, and you
• 33:52
  have to pay it. Whereas previously the mother might be able to sue him
• 33:55
  for non support, and previously the courts would deal with whether or not,
• 34:01
  like if the mother had money and could support the children, they might not
• 34:07
  enforce it. But during the nineteenth century it the mother didn't have to be
• 34:13
  poor in order to collect this. They invented a support obligation and the context
• 34:21
  was of course single moms. So it's not something that's that's new. If
• 34:28
  that makes sense, nothing makes sense anymore, Okay, you know, it's
• 34:39
  a shame that more parents can't just come to some kind of amicable, you
• 34:45
  know, agreement instead of having to run to the court system when shit like
• 34:51
  this happens, you know, or whenever they feel like it, or you
• 34:53
  know, just relying on the courts getting them involve. It's just it's always
• 35:00
  a bad decision, you know, Yeah, because then they're then they're in
• 35:05
  your life, you know, in ways that you really don't want them to
• 35:08
  be. Like it creates a situation where the state it sort of interferes in
• 35:17
  your relationship instead of fixing any problems or just staying out of it, like,
• 35:24
  the state is now essentially stirring shit. If that again, I always
• 35:35
  say this. I don't know if that makes sense to everybody, but it's
• 35:37
  it's sort of my my position on it. So and I'm gonna I'm gonna
• 35:45
  read Meredith G gave us a super chow. I'm going to read out.
• 35:52
  Meredith G gave us five dollars and said HBr talked to ninety eight. Because
• 35:54
  the Child's Port Enforcement is funded by the federal government, it encourages a system
• 36:00
  to pump up the expenses. Keep in mind for these practices breach all laws
• 36:05
  regarding collection of debt and we just discussed this a couple of weeks ago.
• 36:09
  We were talking about the debtors prison issue and and yeah, it does because
• 36:15
  you know, you have a bunch of penalties. Now if you don't pay
• 36:20
  child support, you go to jail, you lose your license, you you
• 36:24
  can't leave the country the country, right, you may have other restrictions on
• 36:30
  travel. They may actually start confiscating your assets and say, if your asset
• 36:40
  happens to be a business asset that you use to make your money. For
• 36:45
  instance, you've got a landscaping business and one of your really important assets is
• 36:53
  a professional power mower, and you're you get behind on child support because maybe
• 37:00
  you get injured and you can't work for a couple of months. And you
• 37:05
  know, even in communication with child support and forcement agency, if they think
• 37:08
  they can confiscate your stuff, they will. Let's say they confiscate your power
• 37:13
  mower. Well, now how do you go back to work exactly? You
• 37:22
  know what if you're a truck driver and they confiscate your truck, it is
• 37:27
  a racket. So you look at this and ostensibly, historically there was this
• 37:35
  belief that women who were single and had custody of their children would decrease in
• 37:46
  number if we just punished men enough for abandoning them, and it's presumed that
• 37:55
  that's how they end up that way, is that the man abandoned the woman
• 38:00
  and now she's in trouble and it's his fault. That's our history, of
• 38:07
  our entire history of ideas, and that by default is assumed to be the
• 38:15
  case. Well, it must be the man who abandoned the woman, all
• 38:19
  right. And what happens if the woman abandons the man, exactly the same
• 38:22
  thing. The woman gets the house, the woman gets the kids, the
• 38:27
  woman gets everything. Like no matter who abandons who, the state gives everything
• 38:32
  to the woman, having stolen it from the man. So why would you
• 38:38
  assume that the man is at fault. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
• 38:44
  The same thing happens in either case. So what we were talking about
• 38:53
  was previously in the nineteenth century they had increased the state's involvement with this concept
• 39:07
  of child support over time, from you know, a mother could sue for
• 39:12
  non support if the family broke up, and a mother could accuse a husband,
• 39:21
  you know, her children's father, of desertion or abandonment and so on,
• 39:25
  to the state came up with an obligation that if you are the father
• 39:30
  of a child and you're not married as mother, that you owe this obligation,
• 39:36
  and the state began enforcing it, and late in the nineteenth century,
• 39:42
  states started passing laws making it a criminal offense with punishments that included prison.
• 39:49
  They even, like New York, added imprisonment with hard labor with the They
• 39:55
  had this idea that, well, if you do heart labor in prison,
• 40:00
  it would incentivize you to work out of prison in order to avoid having to
• 40:08
  go through this. Right, that's so stupid. Yeah, your child's really
• 40:12
  going to be able to eat all those license plates that they're making you make
• 40:15
  in the fucking jail. So that was kind of the situation in pre twentieth
• 40:24
  century, and then in the twentieth century. Of course, early in the
• 40:28
  twentieth century we have this Social Security Act, and nested within the Social Security
• 40:36
  Act was Aid for Dependent Children, which later became Aid for Dependent Families,
• 40:44
  which is part of the welfare system, and created Health and Human Services Department,
• 40:51
  and created a two way street sort of where the general population is funding
• 41:01
  this element of the federal government, and then the federal government is paying women
• 41:06
  to make stupid choices. So we now have I mean, not that they
• 41:13
  needed to, they were doing it anyway. We now have the state making
• 41:20
  payments directly to families, and that's used as an excuse throughout the twentieth century
• 41:25
  to increase state leaning on fathers for child support. And of course as the
• 41:37
  state is leaning on fathers for child support, there are more acts that are
• 41:45
  being passed in order to facilitate this. The Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,
• 41:52
  which had some applicability, it got replaced a few years later the Uniform
• 42:01
  Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, which in all fifty states, DC all the
• 42:09
  territories, provided a system for interstate enforcement and support orders without requiring the person
• 42:17
  seeking support to go to the state where the person they were seeking it from
• 42:22
  was. So if you were in Ohio and you wanted to claim that a
• 42:30
  man in California was the father of your child and was not supporting the child
• 42:34
  and owed you money to support the child, you didn't have to go sue
• 42:37
  him in California. It allowed women to make claims against men in other states,
• 42:45
  and it really didn't have a lot of fraud protection, and there have
• 42:49
  been cases where women have for the same child filed cases against multiple fathers in
• 42:54
  multiple states and collected from all of them. God damn it. I mean,
• 43:02
  you would think with some of that money that they're collecting that they would
• 43:07
  be able to investigate shit like that, Like maybe maybe their databases could talk
• 43:12
  to each other or something. Is that too much to ask? I mean,
• 43:17
  I don't think that's very difficult to do. I mean, don't police
• 43:23
  departments they talk interstate. I mean, you would think that they would want
• 43:30
  to avoid fraud, right, Fraud would be a bad thing in the system,
• 43:35
  right, Apparently not. Yeah, So what would you think of the
• 43:42
  system that used your employer's money. So your employer is paying to collect from
• 43:57
  customers, and you might collect from three or four customers for the same service,
• 44:06
  and your employer does nothing to prevent fraud in this instance. What do
• 44:10
  you think would happen in a normal legal system to a business that did that.
• 44:17
  Oh? God, they'd be breaked up and down the coals. Yeah.
• 44:22
  If my bank, for instance, went after me for somebody else's mortgage
• 44:27
  and was already receiving payments from them, plus two other residents in the area
• 44:31
  for the same mortgage, maybe in different neighborhoods, maybe in different municipalities.
• 44:37
  Oh no, it's this person in Huber Heights is paying for this Dayton mortgage.
• 44:42
  Now this person in Centerville is paying for this Dayton more Beaver Creek,
• 44:46
  the Beaver Creek resident is paying for the Dayton mortgage. And they're all three
• 44:51
  paying. Don't you think the government would do a few things to the bank
• 44:57
  for that. You think the individuals would have some recourse where they could sue
• 45:01
  and the bank would would have to pay them back. We needn't know.
• 45:06
  This mortgage not my house in a normal in a normally functioning world, yes,
• 45:15
  really, go on, I'm just gonna say that makes all the sense
• 45:20
  in the world. But right, this is not the normal world. Nothing
• 45:25
  is normal. No, So the abnormality of it indicates that the purpose isn't
• 45:35
  just the function that we're told this is for. If it was specifically to
• 45:43
  hold fathers accountable, or specifically to ensure that the children were receiving support,
• 45:50
  there would be something in place to deal with fraud, and there would certainly
• 45:53
  be something in place to deal with uh, the scam artist that's perpetuating the
• 46:02
  fraud, right, But that's not the case here, and Instead, the
• 46:07
  state only increased the power it devoted to collecting child support. So in nineteen
• 46:17
  sixty five, amendments to the Social Security Act allowed welfare agencies to obtain addresses
• 46:24
  and employers of obligated parents from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
• 46:31
  So now the welfare agencies can more easily go after your suppose a deadbeat
• 46:45
  dad by contacting his boss and heckling his boss over his non payment. The
• 46:58
  purpose of a system is what it does, or boasi wid for sure,
• 47:04
  it's a phenomenon that's only recently been discovered. People like to say that that
• 47:09
  the purpose of a system is based on the intentions of those who enforce it.
• 47:16
  But once, once we're long into the existence of a system and being
• 47:27
  exposed to what it does, and what it does does not align with the
• 47:35
  good intentions of those who enforce it, you have to conclude that the purpose
• 47:40
  of a system is not the good intentions of those who claim to oversee it.
• 47:45
  The purpose of a system is what it does, because it keeps doing
• 47:51
  what it does at all at all times. And there we go. Now
• 47:57
  we're getting into the meat of it, right like. This is one of
• 48:04
  the reasons why I wanted to discuss this history. This system historically has done
• 48:10
  nothing to stem the tide of single mother households that were partially or entirely reliant
• 48:21
  on government benefits that has increased steadily since the concept of government payments to single
• 48:31
  mothers with children was created in the United States, and you get into the
• 48:37
  latter half of the twentieth century, it accelerated exponentially, and in nineteen seventy
• 48:44
  four taking effect. I think in seventy five, Congress actually created Title for
• 48:52
  D of the Social Security Act, which is the program that specifically makes those
• 49:00
  payments we were talking about, where the federal government pays the state for every
• 49:06
  dollar the state can attribute to as an expense related to collecting child support from
• 49:15
  fathers. And the wording of its real weird. Let's see if I have
• 49:22
  it up here. I think I opened it. Yeah, it gives a
• 49:28
  it has an incentive payment pool. It creates an incentive payment pool. And
• 49:34
  when it was first written, it gave an amount, and then it went
• 49:38
  through and named several years after the writing of it and increased the amount each
• 49:45
  fiscal year, and they've updated it over time. I think the last time
• 49:51
  it was updated was in two thousand during the again the Contract on America.
• 49:59
  At the that point it was four hundred and twenty two billion in two thousand
• 50:07
  and they cited in the the passage of that bill they described increases through the
• 50:17
  year two thousand and eight and then after the year two thousand and eight.
• 50:22
  The paragraph says, for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive
• 50:27
  payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year multiplied by the
• 50:32
  percentage if any, by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the
• 50:42
  CPI for the second preceding fiscal year, the CPI being the incentive payment pool.
• 50:52
  So essentially, however much percentage it's increasing every year, it will continue
• 51:00
  to increase that much every year thereafter. That's what it's That's what it's saying.
• 51:06
  It's crazy. So even if birth rates aren't, you know, increasing,
• 51:10
  and there's not more children being put into the system, they get more
• 51:15
  bucks. Yeah, just based on how much it increased the previous year,
• 51:21
  not based on need, not based on anything else. That this this fund
• 51:27
  is to have that much more money put into it every year as your government
• 51:31
  hard at work people. Yeah, and then it makes payments. The state
• 51:39
  doesn't just get a payment, right, So you have say Ohio, Ohio
• 51:45
  goes after Bob for Bob Junior's child support, and that there's different layers of
• 51:53
  how this works. So first you make a child support arrangement and required to
• 52:00
  pay through the state. The state says, all right, but we have
• 52:02
  to establish paternity and Bob says, well, that's easy. I signed the
• 52:07
  birth certificate. I'll sign paperwork that says I'm the father. The State's like,
• 52:10
  nope, you got to take a paternity test. Required, must do.
• 52:17
  Test will be taken. You don't get a choice. So now the
• 52:24
  state has the material they need to send to the federal government saying we had
• 52:32
  to establish paternity. So they have payment a the paternity establishment performance level.
• 52:38
  And for every guy they make establish paternity who they already know is the father,
• 52:46
  that increases that performance level the percentage of that performance level, and so
• 52:52
  that that way they get a higher percentage of the cost of paternity establishment reimbursed.
• 53:00
  If they just went after every guy that was named and said no,
• 53:05
  I'm not the father, and let's say fifty percent of men who the state
• 53:12
  goes after as fathers turn out to not be the father, then they would
• 53:15
  only get back fifty percent of the cost. But if they force an equal
• 53:23
  number of men who already are admitting, yes, I am the father and
• 53:27
  they're correct, they haven't been cheated on, to also submit to paternity tests,
• 53:37
  suddenly now we're at seventy five percent, and the federal government will reimburse
• 53:43
  them for seventy five percent of the cost of testing. And now they're taking
• 53:49
  in more money, and they can even you know, make the child support
• 53:54
  cost, hire to pay for that paternity test, or charge urge the father
• 54:00
  for that paternity test, and then still get reimbursed by the state, the
• 54:04
  federal government, and nobody can do anything about it. They can't be stopped.
• 54:13
  Then you have and that's just the first layer, right support order performance
• 54:16
  level is the next layer. So if you have them going after just men
• 54:23
  who are not paying, that might be a lower performance level, especially if
• 54:30
  it's guys that are homeless, guys that are not working, guys that are
• 54:37
  maybe falsely accused of making more money than they actually make. You know,
• 54:44
  we're guys who don't believe they're the father whatever they're not paying. That would
• 54:47
  be a low level. But if every man who pays child support in the
• 54:52
  entire state has to pay through the state, the payment performance level goes much
• 54:57
  higher and they get much more money back. Doesn't change how much the actual
• 55:04
  agency is doing to make sure payments get made, but now they're getting paid
• 55:09
  a lot more. Wouldn't you love to do that at your job? Hell
• 55:16
  yeah, my job performance doesn't have to increase at all, none. But
• 55:24
  now I'm going to get, you know, fifty percent more money for doing
• 55:30
  it for no reason because I did this thing on paper that makes it look
• 55:35
  like I'm more efficient than I really am. Yeah, Oh my god.
• 55:40
  What do you think your employer would do if they caught you doing that again?
• 55:51
  I say, fifteen percent of my as sure as my fire in your
• 55:53
  ass, your sorry aspire past. Yes, So then that's that's the performance
• 56:05
  level, current payment performance level. Then the a rearach payment performance level comes
• 56:09
  in. All right. So I got a story for you guys, And
• 56:14
  I think I told this two weeks ago. Two when during the the two
• 56:21
  thousand election, when I hate to I hate to do this, but when
• 56:30
  when President Bush was running for office, and when Congress, the Republicans that
• 56:37
  took over Congress that year were running for office. I think the state government's
• 56:43
  pretty well knew that we were going to have this sweeping change in politics that
• 56:50
  year. It was there was no doubt. Whether that's because the hmmm,
• 57:00
  whether it's because the elections were all theater, or whether it's because that was
• 57:05
  just the political environment in the United States. I'll leave that up to people
• 57:07
  that discuss because it's not the subject of this particular episode. But I will
• 57:14
  say that what I believed at the time and what I believe now are totally
• 57:16
  different. And if you look at the orchestration that takes place around every campaign,
• 57:29
  with the establishment media and everything, it really does look like they're just
• 57:34
  taking turns, right and then using public support as an excuse to enact laws
• 57:44
  like this. Right. But yeah, so Ohio knew, and they made
• 57:50
  it law that fathers who owed child support couldn't just pay directly to the wife,
• 57:59
  the ex wife mother of their child. They had to pay through the
• 58:01
  state. If they didn't pay through the state, it didn't count as child
• 58:06
  support. And no matter how much money they gave the mother of their child
• 58:10
  directly, if they had a child support obligation, they would be considered to
• 58:15
  be interrears, and then they made it retroactive for a whole year, so
• 58:23
  men who had been current on their child support suddenly were in arrears. And
• 58:32
  of course, men who were current on their child support were current on their
• 58:40
  child support because they were doing their due diligence according to the state, they
• 58:45
  were paying. So they essentially put into arrears a whole population of men who
• 58:52
  were compliant with the law. So what do you think those men did.
• 59:00
  Does that have anything to do with men's rea. They were already compliant when
• 59:08
  you think about it. They tried their best. Most of them did everything
• 59:15
  they possibly could to catch up. You know, my husband included, and
• 59:17
  that included me paying into the system to help us get caught up. I
• 59:25
  paid child support to another woman for children who are not my biological children.
• 59:32
  And I am not the only step mom that did that, because I've been
• 59:36
  in stepmom groups on Facebook for years and we'd all talked about this. Yes,
• 59:42
  we'd all paid child support to our husband's ex wives through the state for
• 59:50
  children that not only were not biologically ours, but many of us experienced resentment
• 59:58
  from the ex for any relationship that we had with the child. So if
• 1:00:02
  the child didn't hate us for being the other woman, even though we weren't.
• 1:00:08
  That was they got mistreated at home for that. But yeah, like
• 1:00:15
  the state collected the same child support twice that year from a lot of men.
• 1:00:21
  And in our case, it took us a long time. It took
• 1:00:23
  us ten years to get caught up to recover financially from that blow. And
• 1:00:30
  that was by design, right, But that created the illusion of a high
• 1:00:38
  performance level for a rearridge. And of course Ohio got a shit ton of
• 1:00:44
  money from the federal government for that. And because you had done this to
• 1:00:51
  men who were already compliant and who were going to respond to it by doing
• 1:00:55
  their level best to catch up again after being put into arrears falsely, it
• 1:01:05
  goes to the next layer, the cost effectiveness performance level. Well, they
• 1:01:09
  didn't have to spend a lot of money to do this, so they get
• 1:01:14
  the federal government pays the state for showing that they're spending less than they would
• 1:01:20
  otherwise have to. Right, the federal government pays the state extra money for
• 1:01:23
  not having to spend money. So they pay them for spending the money,
• 1:01:27
  and then they pay them for not spending the money. They comment and going
• 1:01:35
  yep and then there is also the layer where however much money they collect,
• 1:01:40
  they get a bounty. So if they collect ninety percent of what is owed
• 1:01:50
  to them that year, they get a bounty of ninety percent of the allowance
• 1:01:57
  set aside for the state. So that's how it ends up being the federal
• 1:02:05
  government paying the states more than the state is actually spending uh and paying more
• 1:02:12
  than the state is actually collecting in child support. Uh and and it actually
• 1:02:17
  costs the federal government more to collect that child support then they're taking in in
• 1:02:27
  child support. So that that proves that that claim that you know, well,
• 1:02:31
  it's to reimburse the government for its expenses, Well, no, hell
• 1:02:36
  it is. It's it's not it can't be to reimburse because it's not reimbursing.
• 1:02:39
  It's costing them more to collect it than it is to Then they're then
• 1:02:45
  they're getting out of it, right. It's ridiculous. And the thing that's
• 1:02:52
  maddening about it is that you know it's never going to change. It's never
• 1:02:58
  at least that's the way it feels. I mean, why in the world
• 1:03:02
  would they take this, this bill, this these laws and just say,
• 1:03:07
  I you know what, screw it. We were wrong let's let's let's redo
• 1:03:12
  it and make it, you know, more equitable. They're never going to
• 1:03:15
  do that. Yeah, exactly. And here's the question then, right,
• 1:03:21
  So what's the result of this, What is actually occurring in response to this?
• 1:03:28
  The first thing is this agency, this department that does this is getting
• 1:03:36
  bigger, and it's getting bigger every year. It's growing exponentially, and it's
• 1:03:42
  becoming the bulk of what the government is and what the government does. So
• 1:03:51
  that's the first result. The second result is we are we are seeing less
• 1:04:00
  and less a hardship, less and less detriment to being the collector, the
• 1:04:11
  person who has custody and not a partner and is living on welfare and child
• 1:04:20
  support. So as a result of that, and as a result of the
• 1:04:27
  feminist sexual revolution, anti slut shaming, you can't disparage single moms who had
• 1:04:35
  children out of wedlock, and so on, we are now to the point
• 1:04:39
  where almost half of children born in the United States annually are born out of
• 1:04:45
  wedlock. That used to be a rare thing. It used to be a
• 1:04:50
  thing that you know, the community might rally around the girl, or the
• 1:04:55
  community community might shame the girl. But it was the girl not the whole
• 1:05:00
  neighborhood right right now. Now, it's almost half, almost half of children
• 1:05:06
  born in the United States annually are born out of wedlock. And then there's
• 1:05:15
  also the divorce rate on top of that, so there are going to be
• 1:05:20
  we're looking at more single parent homes than two parent homes in the country as
• 1:05:29
  a result of this. So what's the purpose again, why are we doing
• 1:05:36
  this? Why is this better for kids? Hannah, Just tear up all
• 1:05:43
  the family structures so that nobody even knows what a family looks like anymore,
• 1:05:49
  you know, just blur all those lines. Yeah, of course, we're
• 1:05:55
  just gonna have nothing but normally well adjusted, mentally healthy children. That's that's
• 1:06:00
  how that works, right. Yeah, And I look at this and all
• 1:06:08
  I can I keep thinking about. Let's let's consider you know what Mike said
• 1:06:14
  about the function, the outcome being the revealing a real prose. The purpose
• 1:06:20
  of the system is what it does. You can look it up. It's
• 1:06:23
  it's a phenomenon. Now, like the purpose of a system is not something
• 1:06:30
  controlled by any individual human. It's it's a machine invented by humans that that
• 1:06:40
  grows out of the control of any of the individual humans who who purport to
• 1:06:45
  control it, and the purpose of that system outgrows those humans. And like
• 1:06:53
  I say, all the good intentions in the world of the humans who who
• 1:07:00
  purport to control it is it outgrows them. And the purpose of the system
• 1:07:11
  is to steal money from men and give it to women. Even if there
• 1:07:15
  are no humans left in that system who are trying to do that, the
• 1:07:17
  system itself is now doing it. And we can we can philosophically argue all
• 1:07:24
  day about the nature of purpose and what purpose really is, but what a
• 1:07:30
  system does is its purpose, and and the purpose at this point is just
• 1:07:38
  that to steal from men and give to women. And that's that's the government
• 1:07:43
  in a nutshell better better than I can ever describe it without that, without
• 1:07:48
  that principle exactly, I look at this and knowing that and knowing what we
• 1:07:59
  look at last week, where we saw how the academic study of women's studies
• 1:08:10
  was funded and was promoted and was grown inorganically by government contributions and establishment of
• 1:08:21
  organization contributions where the people involved weren't just some grassroots movement that ended up being
• 1:08:31
  successful because what they were trying to do was popular and necessary, but was
• 1:08:38
  actually manipulating academia and trying to manipulate the social cultural environment through academia. We
• 1:08:47
  look at that and we see its contributions to this evolution where public opinion is
• 1:08:57
  manipulated by combination of just prevailing narratives in publishing, in public discussion, in
• 1:09:09
  news reporting, in entertainment media, in every every place that you look,
• 1:09:15
  and in academia. That that imply you know that the entire existence of poverty
• 1:09:26
  in single mother homes in the United States is the fault of fathers and has
• 1:09:31
  absolutely nothing to do with the behavior of mothers, and has absolutely nothing to
• 1:09:36
  do with the contributions of government. It's it's pretty obvious that our civilization,
• 1:09:45
  our society has been manipulated over about the last hundred years, one hundred to
• 1:09:50
  two hundred years to give government more power to facilitate that transfer of money from
• 1:10:00
  men to women. And it's not just those fathers, right, every every
• 1:10:06
  guy in the United States pays into the system, except for the very few
• 1:10:13
  that have zero money at all, and the very few that are able to
• 1:10:16
  use how they handle their money, how they handle their money to get out
• 1:10:23
  of paying their taxes like that's it. Those are the only people that are
• 1:10:29
  excluded. So the entire middle in between the extreme poor and the extreme wealthy
• 1:10:34
  are paying in and they're not getting enough back in benefits to say, well,
• 1:10:42
  they're not net payers into the system, whereas the female population in general
• 1:10:47
  gets enough back in benefits that it's unless you know, you're talking somebody like
• 1:10:54
  Lauren, who is single, doesn't have kids, doesn't get any kind of
• 1:11:00
  of because I'm a woman incentive pay you know, no, no taxpayer funded
• 1:11:10
  grants or loans or anything like that. Didn't start a woman owned business to
• 1:11:15
  to to exploit the system or anything like that like Lawrence paying like a man.
• 1:11:23
  Yeah, and I'll take any one of them grants if you got a
• 1:11:30
  good lord spose. Technically now I am, but for years, and I
• 1:11:35
  probably not now because I'm married. But most women, most of us,
• 1:11:44
  never become net payers into the tax system. Like our whole lives. We
• 1:11:54
  are getting more back one way or another in benefits, even if there's some
• 1:11:58
  active benefits and there's some passive benefits. So if you don't go for welfare,
• 1:12:01
  for instance, but you work in an environment where there is incentive paid
• 1:12:08
  to your employer to hire more women, your employer gets money because you're there,
• 1:12:15
  You're benefiting from that. They're more likely to hire you than a man
• 1:12:17
  because of that, And there's a lot of environments that have that. If
• 1:12:21
  you've ever attended university and you've got financial aid, there is financial aid you
• 1:12:27
  can get because you're a woman that you can't get if you're a man.
• 1:12:30
  If you've ever tried to start a business and gone after a business loan,
• 1:12:35
  your bank gets paid to offer you a more lenient loan system than a man
• 1:12:44
  would get because you're a woman. So like when I talk about passive benefits,
• 1:12:51
  there are things that women get from the federal government as a concepts,
• 1:13:00
  I guess you could say, like, I'm not really I can't really say
• 1:13:03
  I'm benefiting from most of that stuff because I haven't used it, but it's
• 1:13:08
  still being done in my name because I'm a woman, and my employer gets
• 1:13:14
  that kind of incentive. I'm sure I've had two or three employers that have
• 1:13:17
  definitely capitalized on Look how many women we hire, and so that is that
• 1:13:26
  is something that you know everybody's going to apply for jobs. You can't control
• 1:13:33
  whether or not you. Your employer gets that money and takes advantage of that
• 1:13:38
  money. Like you could maybe work for smaller businesses that don't get that money
• 1:13:43
  because they don't know how to apply for it. But if you work for
• 1:13:45
  a big corporation, your employer is probably getting that money. Like that's maybe
• 1:13:51
  maybe one thing even Lauren's benefiting from. But most women, if you've been
• 1:13:57
  married, if you've had children, if your children have gone to the public
• 1:14:01
  school system, if you've had any kind of you know, financial aid for
• 1:14:06
  university or anything else, there's a level that you've gotten because you're a woman
• 1:14:13
  that men paid for through the state, and this type of incentive is this
• 1:14:18
  type of program is part of that. So the last thing I want to
• 1:14:26
  touch on before I read any super chats which we do have too that I
• 1:14:30
  saw and make sure I still have the second one. Yeah, I still
• 1:14:34
  have the second one. Oddly enough, I didn't copy that over to the
• 1:14:43
  page I used to make sure that I don't lose them. So I'm gonna
• 1:14:46
  do that really quick. But I talked about Michael's thread, and I want
• 1:14:53
  to just highlight a little bit about it. So that's actually in the low
• 1:14:58
  bar. It's low bars, not right, but under the Twitter space where
• 1:15:05
  you can sort of see there's a series of links, and the top tweet
• 1:15:12
  in that thread is one of the links. Let me go back to that.
• 1:15:15
  I just had it open. There we go, all right. So
• 1:15:20
  something else to understand about how child support evolved in the United States goes back
• 1:15:28
  to the UK. Again. Prior to the adoption of the Tender Years doctrine
• 1:15:35
  via the Custody of Infants Act of I Believe eighteen thirty nine, it was
• 1:15:43
  standard and divorce that the father would have custody of the child. Because the
• 1:15:49
  father had the income, it was expected that he would be able to support
• 1:15:55
  the child on his own and mothers were not obligated to pay child support,
• 1:16:01
  and that carried over into the United States. Divorce was not like super common
• 1:16:06
  back then. For one thing, you didn't have no fault divorce. What
• 1:16:11
  no fault divorce basically did was the one way a woman could get custody in
• 1:16:17
  divorce prior to no fault divorce was if the reason for the divorce was because
• 1:16:25
  her husband cheated on her, or her husband abandoned her, or her husband
• 1:16:33
  violated the legal obligations that he had under marital law and under coverture, which
• 1:16:44
  you know, like among other things, if he stopped having sex with her,
• 1:16:49
  that would be one. So there were different things that the women could
• 1:16:57
  complain about to the court and say I wanted and I want custody in my
• 1:17:00
  children and I want child support, they could get it. But Caroline Norton,
• 1:17:08
  just she and her husband split up. He wasn't cheating on her,
• 1:17:13
  he wasn't beating her, he wasn't denying her anything. So she couldn't complain
• 1:17:20
  about anything to the court that would justify her obtaining custody and getting support from
• 1:17:27
  him. So she divorced him. She was the one guilty of abandonment and
• 1:17:31
  so she didn't but she didn't have any custody rights because she had chosen to
• 1:17:38
  separate herself from him, right, So what no fault divorce did was actually
• 1:17:45
  make it all his fault divorce. In every divorce, custody was presumed to
• 1:17:51
  go to the mother based on the tender years doctrine, stating that it was
• 1:17:58
  in the best interest of the child for city to go to the mother during
• 1:18:01
  the younger years like up to age seven, that a child is in desperate
• 1:18:06
  need of mom's attention but doesn't need dad so much, which is bullshit.
• 1:18:11
  That's a an industrial era. Look at parenting prior to the industrialization of our
• 1:18:18
  civilization. If your dad put horseshoes on horses for a living, he'd start
• 1:18:27
  teaching you how to do that when you were like five, and by the
• 1:18:32
  time you were, you know, twelve years old, you might be working
• 1:18:36
  for him. If you know, if your dad was a baker, by
• 1:18:41
  the time you were twelve years old, you'd be a baker. You know,
• 1:18:45
  like none of this, especially if you were a boy, right,
• 1:18:50
  none of this. Dad's not involved in the kid's life because he's out in
• 1:18:55
  the workplace. The workplace was his home. His profession was at home.
• 1:19:02
  So anyway, if you look at the Michael Stretton thread here he mentions that,
• 1:19:13
  and then he also talks about the fact that child support exists because women,
• 1:19:18
  unlike men, were viewed by society, including by women, to be
• 1:19:23
  incompetent in handling their finances and incapable of working enough to care for the children
• 1:19:28
  by themselves. And if you remember, in the United States, we passed
• 1:19:34
  a law in nineteen I believe it was nineteen sixty three, the Equal Pay
• 1:19:39
  Act that prior to that, if you were a minority or if you were
• 1:19:45
  a woman, your employer could pay you less for the same work could if
• 1:19:51
  you know, legally, if the market didn't make it impossible. And so
• 1:20:00
  if you did a job that was maybe everybody could do that job, and
• 1:20:09
  there wasn't a lot of competition among employers to get people to do that job.
• 1:20:15
  If you were a minority or you were a woman, you probably made
• 1:20:17
  less For millennia, he says, when men were the sole custodial parents after
• 1:20:24
  divorced, women were neither asked nor required to pay child support. Men had
• 1:20:28
  to support the children of whom the men had custody. And the question he
• 1:20:31
  asked, I think is very relevant, why can't modern women handle the same
• 1:20:36
  degree of responsibility as men of old? Like? Why can't women do what
• 1:20:45
  men have always been expected to do? So I have the only answer that
• 1:20:53
  I I can conclude from the information that we've and looking at tonight. It
• 1:21:01
  isn't that women can't do it. It isn't even that women won't do it.
• 1:21:06
  It's that it's beneficial to the government if women don't do it. The
• 1:21:15
  purpose of the system is what the system does. The system exists to transfer
• 1:21:23
  money from men to women in order to perpetuate a need for its own existence.
• 1:21:33
  That's the purpose of the system. The purpose of the system is to
• 1:21:39
  perpetuate a need for the system, or at least a perceived need. So
• 1:21:45
  it is literally a self perpetuating family destruction machine. It's a self licking ice
• 1:21:56
  cream. That's another phenomenon that you all can look up, self licking ice
• 1:22:01
  Hear that that's perfect, it's really it's really angering. We literally have a
• 1:22:11
  government agency that exists to abuse the public in ways that will perpetuate the image
• 1:22:21
  of a need for itself without benefiting anyone. Child support is for the child
• 1:22:32
  bullshit. Child support is for the collection agency. Child support is for the
• 1:22:38
  government. Child support is for the politicians that posture and preach and run on
• 1:22:47
  the idea of making those bad deadbeat men pay for what they did to those
• 1:22:55
  poor innocent women that they impregnated through no act of the woman's own, just
• 1:23:00
  you know, walking down the street, whacked her in the belly with a
• 1:23:02
  pregnancy stick. It's it's the dark side of meme magic. It's hard to
• 1:23:12
  understand exactly what a meme is, but a meme is is any point of
• 1:23:20
  information that is repeated in the brains of human beings. It's like a gene
• 1:23:28
  is any point of information that is repeated with with within the biological the genetics
• 1:23:34
  of of any living creature. This and this is how the word meme was
• 1:23:41
  coined, I think by Richard Dork. It's it was actually modeled around the
• 1:23:46
  word gene. That's why it's called meme because it's a mimetic gene. It's
• 1:23:51
  a piece of information that is repeated in the minds of human beings. A
• 1:24:00
  word is a kind of memeh An artistic style is a kind of meme.
• 1:24:08
  And the systems we create governmentally, politically are a kind of meme. And
• 1:24:15
  and they develop a life of their own. And and it's scary because it's
• 1:24:23
  much easier to create these these kinds of meme systems than it is to understand
• 1:24:29
  them. Because they say they develop a life of their own with a purpose
• 1:24:31
  of their own, that is, that is based on what they do and
• 1:24:35
  not what we as humans think they're doing, even though we created them.
• 1:24:41
  We were at this stage where we're create where we're creating robots that that have
• 1:24:47
  that have agendas beyond what we as humans can understand. And that I'm not
• 1:24:58
  just talking about AI when when when I described that, it's it sounds like
• 1:25:01
  I'm talking about AI. But this is now, this has already existed for
• 1:25:05
  centuries. The government itself is the perfect example of this kind of machine that
• 1:25:14
  we've created, that that develops an agenda that, even though we created it,
• 1:25:21
  runs a mock in in ways that we could possibly have predicted. And
• 1:25:29
  and because we couldn't have predicted it, we we have we have trouble even
• 1:25:34
  understanding how the agenda of these machines work. And we hear a Honeybadger radio,
• 1:25:43
  it's a kind of it kind of shed some light on how the fuck
• 1:25:48
  these things work, especially when it comes to the machines that prey on our
• 1:25:57
  gymocentric nature. And yes, we do have a go of center nature,
• 1:26:02
  not one that pertains to the absolute madness that it's that it's become in the
• 1:26:11
  twenty first century, but it's you know, that little that little nugget of
• 1:26:15
  gyno centrism to which human beings are drawn has has become this this post industrial
• 1:26:26
  nightmare machine of gin of centrism that that has grown beyond our means exponentially.
• 1:26:34
  So yeah, like I say, it's an appeal battle, it's us.
• 1:26:40
  It's going to be very difficult for us to understand, but I think we
• 1:26:45
  can if if you'll start listening to the people who are trying to explain it,
• 1:26:50
  rather than calling us a bunch of names. Yeah, that's the tough
• 1:26:56
  part in getting people to recognize now what we're looking at. We're not We're
• 1:27:03
  not doing it just because you know, we have attitudes towards the genders and
• 1:27:09
  so on. We're doing it because we're looking at the impact of these systems
• 1:27:15
  on people, and we're looking at the the impact of these systems on the
• 1:27:21
  development of our culture and how how it changes, uh, the outcomes experienced
• 1:27:28
  by individuals. And unfortunately, this system really damages individuals in a lot of
• 1:27:39
  ways. It really harms like it did, breaks up families, It creates
• 1:27:44
  incentive for carelessness. There's a reason why. Like my the top of my
• 1:27:54
  my main page, my my regular Twitter account. At the very top of
• 1:27:59
  it, the background is just white text on a black background that says,
• 1:28:05
  stop paying women to make stupid choices. When women make these choices, they
• 1:28:14
  make their own lives harder, they make their child's life harder, they make
• 1:28:18
  their father of their child's life harder, and they make your life harder because
• 1:28:29
  they increase the incentive for the government to collect from you to make up for
• 1:28:33
  their shortcomings. And none of them make those choices with these things in mind.
• 1:28:42
  They're not doing it out of malice. They're doing it out of carelessness.
• 1:28:47
  They're doing it out of a lack of forethought and a lack of foresight
• 1:28:51
  and a lack of self awareness. It's really it's like the start domino at
• 1:29:03
  the beginning, having no view of where the last domino falls, or many
• 1:29:12
  of them in between. Something that has to change, and women need to
• 1:29:16
  be more aware of this. Women need to understand if I fuck around,
• 1:29:23
  I'm not the only one who's gonna find out. If I fuck around,
• 1:29:28
  when the find out hits, it's gonna hit me. It's gonna hit my
• 1:29:30
  kid, it's gonna hit my kid's father, it's gonna hit all of the
• 1:29:33
  people that pay taxes into the system that is there to act as my safety
• 1:29:39
  net when I fall. Because you're responsible for that. Even if you don't
• 1:29:47
  take responsibility for it, you still cause to that. You're still ethically culpable
• 1:29:55
  for that. You should at least know that, Yeah, we have a
• 1:29:59
  machine called the government that diffuses to find out into everyone else around you.
• 1:30:05
  It doesn't diffuse it completely away from you as a woman. It diffuses it
• 1:30:10
  into the men in your life, the children in your life. But there's
• 1:30:14
  still a few grains of find out that that you're going to have to deal
• 1:30:19
  with, ladies. And if you don't, if you don't want to inflict
• 1:30:25
  that find out on yourself and the men in your life and the children in
• 1:30:29
  your life, then stop fucking around. It's it's really sad. Men are
• 1:30:35
  the primary victims of things that happen to men, but when it comes to
• 1:30:42
  the backlash of women's choices, everyone else of the primary victims. Women are
• 1:30:47
  the secondary victims of the backlash of choices that they make in ignorance, whether
• 1:30:54
  whether it's cultivated by themselves or by by their environment. So the way I
• 1:31:01
  would exemplify that, let's say your single mom, your child doesn't have a
• 1:31:11
  father in the home, doesn't have a good male mentor doesn't grow up understanding
• 1:31:17
  masculine accountability, masculine cooperativeness. None of the things about healthy adult masculinity are
• 1:31:27
  being communicated to this child. So if the child's a boy, this creates
• 1:31:33
  a like increases the chances of him ending up on the wrong side of the
• 1:31:40
  law in adulthood by fifty percent. If the child is a girl, it
• 1:31:45
  increases the chances of her getting together with an asshole instead of a good partner
• 1:31:54
  in her adulthood. It increases the chances that she's also going to become an
• 1:31:58
  unwed mother, and any financial hardship you've gone through, it increases the chances
• 1:32:03
  that your daughter is going to experience that. It increases the chances that your
• 1:32:08
  son's going to experience that increases the chances that you're going to sit in a
• 1:32:11
  courtroom and watch the bailiffs haul your son off to juvie where he might be
• 1:32:19
  raped by the women who work there. Because research into the occurrences of sexual
• 1:32:30
  misconduct into the juvenile detention system in the United States indicate that the majority of
• 1:32:38
  sexual misconduct in the facilities is committed by staff, not by inmates, at
• 1:32:45
  least at the mail facilities, and that despite being less than half of the
• 1:32:54
  staff at these facilities, more than more than ninety five percent of the perpetration
• 1:33:00
  involves female staff. So it's like I said, those dominoes. First domino
• 1:33:11
  is you deciding not to not to make a partnership with the father, a
• 1:33:17
  marriage with the father, the underlying scaffolding for your reproductive choices. Right,
• 1:33:27
  that's the first domino. The first domino is you, you deciding I don't
• 1:33:32
  need to be sure that I want this man to be the father of my
• 1:33:35
  child before I have sex with him, and then not using proper birth control
• 1:33:42
  or whatever, or maybe getting married and having kids and then getting divorced.
• 1:33:45
  Either way, now you have a single mother household, and the end domino.
• 1:33:51
  You might not have foreseen that. You might not have thought my kid's
• 1:33:55
  gonna end up in Juvi getting raped by I don't know, the librarian.
• 1:34:00
  But that result is an outcome of your choices. Obviously the kid is the
• 1:34:09
  primary victim of that. But if your mom and you see that happen to
• 1:34:13
  your kid, you know that happened to your kid, it still hurts.
• 1:34:17
  You don't want that. But the only way for women to avoid inflicting those
• 1:34:26
  kind of outcomes on the people around them is if we get women to think
• 1:34:30
  about their actions before they engage in them, or like I like to say,
• 1:34:36
  love your children before you have them. Hen, Yeah, the retort
• 1:34:46
  to that, and I hear this retort all the time. Well, if
• 1:34:49
  men didn't stick there, Dixon everything. Oh god, there's only two circumstances
• 1:34:59
  under which guy can stick his dick in a woman, all right. Either
• 1:35:02
  he's raping her, which is the rare circumstance, or she consented, she
• 1:35:10
  chose that, which is the other circumstance. Yeah, he's responsible for where
• 1:35:16
  he sticks his dick. She's responsible for accepting it. She's responsible for all
• 1:35:26
  of the different types of birth control that she decides on and not deciding on
• 1:35:30
  it is still a decision. She's responsible for carrying to term. She's responsible
• 1:35:35
  for retaining custody. You don't have to retain custody. There's the father.
• 1:35:44
  There's an adoption system, there's your family. There's the safe haven abandonment system.
• 1:35:48
  If you have no other option, there's the safe Haven abandonment system.
• 1:35:54
  It's not ideal, but if you're going to be a poverty situation for that
• 1:35:59
  child, and you weren't smart enough to not have sex, to not pick
• 1:36:05
  a partner that wasn't going to raiseicate with you, to use birth control,
• 1:36:11
  to use multiple forms of birth control and to use them effectively, or to
• 1:36:16
  not carry the term, which I don't like that option, but it is
• 1:36:19
  an option that women have. Then it's on you to decide that maybe you're
• 1:36:27
  not the best choice as the person to raise that child. Yeah, don't
• 1:36:32
  stick your dick in crazy is good advice, and it's always been good advice.
• 1:36:35
  It's always been the advice we give to men. And don't envelop your
• 1:36:41
  vagina around crazy is good advice. But at some point in history people just
• 1:36:48
  stopped giving that advice to women. They just kept saying, yeah, enveloped
• 1:36:53
  your dick around crazy and then rinse that crazy for all the money you can.
• 1:37:00
  Well. And the tough thing for me is I only hear what about
• 1:37:05
  the men. I don't hear anybody talking about where men shoult or should not
• 1:37:14
  stick their dick except in reply to how women can protect themselves in their communities
• 1:37:20
  from women's sexual mistakes. Right, it's not a response to say, well,
• 1:37:30
  men can be careful too, that's deflection. It's not somebody else's fault.
• 1:37:39
  When a woman makes a bad decision, even if somebody else was involved
• 1:37:44
  in that bad decision and also made bad decisions, it doesn't improve the nature
• 1:37:48
  of her decisions, and it doesn't absolve her of her decisions. Women's actions
• 1:37:57
  matter. We know men's actions matter. We have a history of acknowledging that
• 1:38:05
  men's actions matter, and we have a history of responding to the fact that
• 1:38:11
  men's actions matter. In fact, we have a history of overreacting to how
• 1:38:16
  much men's actions matter. But we can't forget that women's actions also matter.
• 1:38:29
  I mean, am I being unreasonable here? To me? I see guynocentrism
• 1:38:32
  in saying that talking about how much women's actions matter is giving men a free
• 1:38:39
  pass. Yeah, this was a good time for a pregnant pause. That's
• 1:38:53
  why we left one. No, we don't want the pause to be pregnant
• 1:38:57
  either. I'm using a pause condom ary. Now, okay, so I'm
• 1:39:04
  gonna I'm gonna get more into the super chats before I super Child was before
• 1:39:09
  I forget to read them. So we got one before the show that wasn't
• 1:39:16
  related to the show. Tellimnar gave us one hundred dollars. Thank you,
• 1:39:21
  Telei Nar and said, dear Alison, I am catching up on your content
• 1:39:26
  and in the middle of your rant Zirker two o seven, the way you
• 1:39:29
  describe the relationship with your husband has compelled me to donate this money to help
• 1:39:31
  you to out. It is all so very wholesome. I am certain if
• 1:39:38
  you went on one of those red pill podcasts or like whatever and explained how
• 1:39:43
  you make your marriage work, then you would be very popular with all the
• 1:39:45
  men and the women who were worth a damn. I don't know what I
• 1:39:50
  did. I haven't seen that, ran rant Zirker, so I don't know
• 1:39:54
  what that's in response to, but I will say this, it's fun to
• 1:39:58
  be around and Alison and her husband because they are a lot like my husband.
• 1:40:03
  They argue like that brother and sister, but they've been together for twenty
• 1:40:06
  five years and you can feel how much they love each other. They definitely
• 1:40:15
  love each other very much, and it's great modern marriage. A lot of
• 1:40:21
  things have changed that like people like Alison and her husband have not abandoned the
• 1:40:32
  old fashioned expectation that when you're in a partnership there's give and take, that
• 1:40:39
  you care about each other and that you work toward each other's welfare, and
• 1:40:45
  that you you make each other a priority in your actions instead of just thinking
• 1:40:54
  about yourself. And it's reliant on it's really love relies on viewing the others
• 1:41:06
  as as important as yourself, and we hold men to that. Women fail
• 1:41:15
  at it a lot. So it is fun to be around a relationship where
• 1:41:18
  both partners understand it and both partners live it. But yeah, the next
• 1:41:31
  one was the one. I don't know if I got to if I finished
• 1:41:34
  reading this or not. It was Meredith g gave us five dollars and said
• 1:41:38
  to HBr Talk two ninety eight. Because Child'spport enforcement is funded by the federal
• 1:41:43
  government, it encourages the system to pump up expenses. Keep in mind,
• 1:41:46
  these practices breach all laws regarding collection of debt. And I think we talked
• 1:41:49
  about banks in regard to that. And then Richard Bierre gave us five dollars
• 1:41:56
  and staid, eventually the proposed solution will be to create state state. I
• 1:42:03
  think that's crches, maybe cachets for all children and tax everyone to pay for
• 1:42:10
  it. And actually there was a thing in the where was it not the
• 1:42:20
  reddit post? Yeah, the history of Title nine thing that I was looking
• 1:42:27
  at. At one point, America was unique in not having a tax refund
• 1:42:38
  or any other type of like we do now. But the federal government didn't
• 1:42:46
  pay parents for having children for a long time, which it shouldn't because you
• 1:42:53
  got to take that money from somebody to give it to them, Right,
• 1:42:57
  So they're punishing people for not having kids. And the government shouldn't be deciding
• 1:43:01
  who has kids, or incentivizing or disincentivizing or any other financial action around people
• 1:43:10
  having children. That should be based on the individuals in question. Right.
• 1:43:16
  But yeah, other countries were already doing that well before the United States created
• 1:43:27
  what the fuck is it called the earned income tax credit. The earned income
• 1:43:33
  tax credit is a credit given not to all parents with children, but to
• 1:43:41
  parents between two specific income levels, basically parents that are at the higher end
• 1:43:48
  of poverty or up to the middle of being middle class. And it maximizes
• 1:43:59
  and then goes down. So if you barely make anything, you don't get
• 1:44:03
  much, and if you make a ton, you don't get much. But
• 1:44:08
  if you're in the middle of that group and you're just barely above the poverty
• 1:44:13
  level or you're you're squeaking by, the federal government might actually give you back
• 1:44:18
  more money than you paid in. And I was working at the gas station
• 1:44:27
  I worked at when I I became aware of how other people spend that money,
• 1:44:31
  because like, that's something that's it's a tax credit. So you you
• 1:44:38
  fill out your information, and it affects how much you get back in taxes
• 1:44:44
  and you get your tax refund back. You know, we always the whole
• 1:44:48
  time that we had a child support obligation to deal with that, money always
• 1:44:56
  went toward the child support obligation. If we had any leftover besides what we
• 1:45:02
  had to pay into the child support obligation, it went to things like the
• 1:45:06
  electric bill. It went to things like you know, car payments or car
• 1:45:14
  repairs, rent, you know, stuff like that. It's it went for
• 1:45:17
  bills like that's what it was intended for. And you know, we didn't
• 1:45:23
  have a bunch of extra money to be spending on other stuff. But I
• 1:45:27
  would go to work and listen to the women I worked with talk about how
• 1:45:30
  they got a brand new big screen television with that money, and where you
• 1:45:35
  know, as a married couple with two incomes, my husband and I might
• 1:45:43
  be eligible for a few hundred bucks or maybe maybe our full tax refund with
• 1:45:49
  that included. We overpaid by you know, one year, we overpaid by
• 1:45:56
  like two thousand dollars, So we got back two thousand dollars and we had
• 1:46:01
  enough to pay a month's electric bill after we paid into the child support obligation.
• 1:46:08
  That same year, my one coworker, who was a single mom receiving
• 1:46:13
  child support, receiving public benefits, got back eight thousand dollars. She didn't
• 1:46:21
  pay any thousand dollars, but she got back eight thousand dollars. This woman
• 1:46:29
  had been complaining about how difficult it was to get to work because she had
• 1:46:34
  a piece of shit car. My household has not paid more than two thousand
• 1:46:45
  dollars for a car the entire time I've been married. Like, we buy
• 1:46:50
  them, we fix them as needed, and we run them until they won't
• 1:46:56
  run anymore. Like literally, the last vehicle I owned, we stopped driving
• 1:47:01
  it because one of the tires, one of the wheels broke off. Like
• 1:47:08
  you don't drive after that, obviously, I drove that thing to death.
• 1:47:15
  And the one before that, the one before that. The second time the
• 1:47:23
  transmission went out, it was going to cost more to fix the transmission than
• 1:47:27
  it would to get a vehicle that worked better. You know, That's that's
• 1:47:30
  how we did things, right, So I thought, oh, well,
• 1:47:31
  eight thousand bucks, she had to be able to get a really good car.
• 1:47:34
  She'll be in good shape, she'll be able to get to and from
• 1:47:36
  work. No she bought a big screen TV and a bunch of other stuff
• 1:47:40
  and kept complaining about her car. Didn't understand why she couldn't have, you
• 1:47:44
  know, a better car. It's like, well, because you when you
• 1:47:46
  get eight thousand dollars, you spent it on shit like That's how that works.
• 1:47:55
  That's how that system works. So when you guys pay into that system
• 1:48:00
  them and you're helping these women out, you're helping them make stupid choices.
• 1:48:11
  So yeah, the state might do that. The state might create earmarked funds
• 1:48:18
  for all children and tax everyone to pay for it. But the result is
• 1:48:25
  going to be a bunch of women buying big screen TVs and PlayStations and xboxes
• 1:48:30
  and expensive one time wear clothes and shoes and shit like that, going out
• 1:48:36
  drinking with their friends and driving piece of shit cars that don't get them to
• 1:48:41
  and fromwork. Our super chats, we have two that I've seen. Albert
• 1:48:53
  Nata Retro gave us both of them. The first one he gave us five
• 1:48:56
  dollars and said, yes, harsher for women, the less prison in time,
• 1:49:00
  unfair, do not draft policy the whole force to get on the lifeboat
• 1:49:04
  rule. Good lord, those poor women and that was in response to women
• 1:49:09
  being oppressed that was early in the other stream for people listening on Twitter,
• 1:49:15
  and then gave us another five dollars and said, by the way, I
• 1:49:18
  look up Stephanie Sanzo. If you want some fitness inspirations, she is enough
• 1:49:23
  to get you working out. I'll be upping my game pretty soon, and
• 1:49:30
  I need to do that. I need to get better about that myself.
• 1:49:32
  So I appreciate that. I will. I will have to look that up,
• 1:49:40
  and I think that's it. I don't think we really have any other
• 1:49:43
  super chat. Super chose super comments from people to read off. So I'm
• 1:49:51
  just gonna go back to because the argument is still happening in the chat.
• 1:49:59
  Yeah. No, it is not a valid response to answer discussion of how
• 1:50:06
  women are responsible for women's choices and women are culpable for the outcomes of women's
• 1:50:13
  choices by deflecting to men and their choices. If I am one of three
• 1:50:23
  people who kicks a dog and the dog turns around and bites me, it's
• 1:50:30
  still my fault that I provoke the dog. And if that dog goes off
• 1:50:34
  and bites somebody else, it's still my fault that I provoke the dog.
• 1:50:39
  Even if it's also two other people's fault that they also provoke the dog.
• 1:50:44
  I don't become innocent because somebody else did it too. That's not how it
• 1:50:47
  works, right, So it is not just an invalid response to bring up
• 1:50:57
  men when we're discussing women's responsibility and culpability for women's choices. It is actually
• 1:51:04
  stupid. But with that, I think we're gonna call it. I have
• 1:51:12
  to find out. We were gonna talk more with the grossness and human relations
• 1:51:16
  specialist juel El Laura on this subject. I think we'll have to do that
• 1:51:21
  another time, find out where she is and what happened there. But in
• 1:51:28
  the meantime, I'm going to thank everybody for listening.