Post: #1

Link

Quote:Gov. Scott vetoes alimony bill, but debate not over

The debate over alimony changes likely will rage again during the next legislative session after Gov. Rick Scott vetoed a bill late Wednesday that would have ended permanent alimony in Florida.

Scott's veto came only four hours before a midnight deadline after which the legislation would have become law with or without his signature.

“It's very disheartening right now,” said Alan Frisher, a divorce financial analyst who lobbied for alimony change. “We're exploring what options we have in future sessions. At the very least we raised awareness on the topic.”

In a letter to state Senate President Don Gaetz, Scott said he could not support the legislation because “it applies retroactively and thus tampers with the settled economic expectations of many Floridians who have experienced divorce.”

Senate Bill 718 would have made it harder to get alimony in short-term marriages and prevented alimony payments from lasting longer than half the length of the marriage.

The bill also would have required judges to give divorced parents equal custody of their children, absent extraordinary circumstances.

Scott said he saw “several forward-looking elements of this bill” and that the legislation sought to “modernize Florida's alimony system by leveling the playing field in divorce proceedings.”

But Scott wrote in his veto message that he didn't agree with how the proposed law would be applied retroactively to divorcees and families.

“The retroactive adjustment of alimony could result in unfair, unanticipated results,” Scott wrote. “Current Florida law already provides for the adjustment of alimony under the proper circumstances.

“The law also ensures that spouses who have sacrificed their careers to raise a family do not suffer financial catastrophe upon divorce and that the lower-earning spouse and stay-at-home parent will not be financially punished.”

Scott concluded the letter to Gaetz by saying, “Floridians have relied on this system post-divorce and planned their lives accordingly.”

Proponents of the bill had argued change is needed to help divorcees move on and release them from their ex-spouses. On Wednesday, the bill's backers said they were disappointed and are looking ahead to next year's legislative session.

Terry Power, a divorcee whose ex-wife had asked for $20,000 a month, said lifetime alimony needs to end.

“There was an outpouring of support in favor of changing these outdated laws,” said Power, an administrator for a national retirement plan based in Clearwater.

Power said he thinks Scott was thinking of his re-election campaign and vetoed the bill in an attempt to court the women's vote.

Opponents of alimony change said the bill would affect the state's women and children financially and that the proposed law took away the discretion of judges.

Cathy Jones, a divorcee from Lakeland, said the reform bill was “hastily crafted legislation.”

“This bill had nothing to do with the welfare of Florida's women and children,” Jones said. “I'm so proud of Gov. Rick Scott for listening to women.”

Jan Killilea, a member of a group opposed to the legislation, said had Scott signed the bill, the law would have caused some women currently receiving alimony to fall below the poverty level.

Killilea, whose Palm Beach-based organization, First Wives First, started lobbying lawmakers in December, said Scott was thinking of the state's women and children, not politics.

“He listened to the legitimate concerns of the minority,” Killilea said.

Although Scott vetoed the bill, that doesn't mean the fight is over, said Mark Sessums, a Lakeland lawyer opposed to alimony changes.

The bill's proponents will likely be back in Tallahassee next year pushing for changes, he said.

“I don't think this bill will ever go away,” Sessums said. “I think it's going to be a year-by-year struggle.”

The man who torpedoed it was a Republican, but so were the bill's two authors, one of whom was a woman.

Another article on it: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-alimony-b...7113.story

Post: #2

Quote:“There was an outpouring of support in favor of changing these outdated laws,” said Power, an administrator for a national retirement plan based in Clearwater.

Power said he thinks Scott was thinking of his re-election campaign and vetoed the bill in an attempt to court the women's vote.

While it may be the best all-around form of government we have, democracy most certainly has its faults.

Post: #3

When I got about halfway through reading the quoted article I literally thought, "Fuck this shit. I need an Athlone gif to perfectly express my displeasure."

Scrolled down.

Jackpot.

Post: #4

   

   

Quote:Jan Killilea, a member of a group opposed to the legislation, said had Scott signed the bill, the law would have caused some women currently receiving alimony to fall below the poverty level.

Post: #5

(05-02-2013 01:20 AM)scorpion Wrote:  When I got about halfway through reading the quoted article I literally thought, "Fuck this shit. I need an Athlone gif to perfectly express my displeasure."

Scrolled down.

Jackpot.

Post: #6

Just goes to prove that Republicans are a bunch of white knights like I've been saying all along.

   

Post: #7

Republican, Democrat, the illusion of choice...

Post: #8

(05-02-2013 01:52 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Just goes to prove that Republicans are a bunch of white knights like I've been saying all along.

I have seen this first-hand, when I move in Republican circles in my state. Especially after this past election, they are going out of their way to be "female friendly."

I gets really difficult to maneuver in these situations because this dudes are looking to score points with women, so if you say something red-pill about feminism or women, you can get slapped down hardcore. Some of the most female-centric shit I have heard has come from hard-core conservative Republicans. They usually don't use feminist lingo, but the practical effect of their bleatings is the same.

I have a great example with respects to domestic violence law. In class, I started questioning some of assumptions made by courts in the cases we reviewed. I was promptly smacked down by females in class. My "friend," who expressed some doubt (privately) about the "gendered" nature of the crime feminists assumed, promptly went to work taking me to task. He came right at me - making some statements some outright feminist could make. Since everybody knew he was the strong Republican in class, he scored serious points. From a power and social status standpoint, it was a good move on his part. He shored up some serious support.

However, he won't use it to advance any red-pill agenda. He is thoroughly blue-pill. Sometimes, like with respects to domestic violence law, he makes a vaguely red-pill statement. He usually backs off, in the end.

Most Republicans, at least mainstream ones, are fools. They are just puppets for the women in the party. Warren Farrell noted that women start voting Republican when they get married. I think that is because the party is about protecting married women. Democrats protect single women, Republicans protect married women. I am not 100% about that, but it makes sense on some level.

Even though I am registered Republican, I get the sense many male Republicans have no idea what the fuck is going on. They understand if they ride on their white stallion and protect women, they will get female approval. Beyond that, I don't think understand power, in general, nor how female sexuality works.

Post: #9

(05-02-2013 01:52 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Just goes to prove that Republicans are a bunch of white knights like I've been saying all along.

Not really. Just about every Republican Senator/Congressman voted for it, and nearly every Democrat voted against it.

Honestly I was shocked that this even made it to the Governor's desk in the first place, so a huge thumbs up to the folks who did vote yes.

Post: #10

If anything, I like the Democrats more.
The Dems are like the Taliban, their open hatred for freedom loving men is a lot more honest.
The Republicans are the backstabbing officers at the base that abandon you behind enemy lines.
Just like the White Knight buddies that 'want what's best for you'.

Post: #11

Barbarosaaaa (did I spell that right) has called out the Republicans more than once for misandry.

Post: #12

They should not have made it retroactive.

Post: #13

(05-02-2013 05:12 AM)Menace Wrote:  They should not have made it retroactive.

In reading the governor's comments, I feel that he would have signed it if not for the retroactive portion of the bill.

He does have a point with this as just instantly stopping payments would likely cause some hardship. The way to get around that is to make the retroactive payments stop at a set future date so the broads can get their shit in order versus living off their ex's for the rest of their lives.


I chuckle when I see a kneejerk reaction about it being a Republican that vetoed it, as it was brought before the legislature by republicans and voted for by republicans.

The thing to remember is both sides of the aisle court the women's vote. Neither is beyond pandering.

Post: #14

I just read this from Roosh Twitter...
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humanin...=longreads

I'm almost 44 and I feel like I won something by never getting married. I can't imagine sending some bitch a check. It would never happen. Never! Even with my child custody..No fucking way am I sending anyone a check.

I can't help but feel I deserve some sort of lifetime achievement award from the manosphere like a plaque that hangs behind me in my office that says this motherfucker doesn't pay bitches, he fights them and wins.

That said I have something else to say..FUCK YOU FUCKING CUNTS! YOU WILL NEVER SEE A DIME FROM ME. EVER!!

Post: #15

(05-02-2013 01:52 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Just goes to prove that Republicans are a bunch of white knights like I've been saying all along.

Except two Republicans authored the bill.

Anyone here understand the local politics behind the bill, and why Republicans were largely for it?

Post: #16

(05-02-2013 09:18 AM)el mechanico Wrote:  I just read this from Roosh Twitter...
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humanin...=longreads

Why anyone would get married after reading that I have no idea.

Post: #17

-They wanted to change was lifetime alimony to longterm alimony (50% the lenght of the marriage)

-Ending alimony at retirement age (you know so you dont have to work til you die to support a wife you might have divorced 30 years ago)

-Not including the 2nd wife´s income as a factor in determining what you have to pay.

-To make the law retroactive.



One website http://alimonynightmares.com/ has many stories from Florida in particular where men write about getting fucked with lifetime alimony.

Quote:After 20 years of marriage, my wife and I decided on divorce. We had a 14 and a 16 year old. . . Florida has No-Fault Divorce. Either party can divorce the other at any time for any reason. She filed for the divorce, which really should have been done years ago, but we were staying together “for the children,” or so I thought. . . I learned the true meaning of Slavery.

In Florida, if you have a “long term marriage,” there is no option. You will be paying Permanent Alimony, if that’s what your ex-spouse wants. At the time, the economy was good. Income was up and the future looked bright. Agreeing to the $10,000 a month alimony payment was going to be real tough, but I thought I could afford to pay it. Since Florida is a No-Fault divorce state so there was nothing I could do to stop the divorce anyway. She knew what she wanted and it wasn’t me. It was $$.

So I paid the $10,000 a month (that doesn’t include the additional $2,500 in child support). Our economy went down the drain. I am a businessman. My wife and I were married years after my education was completed and my business was established. My income decreased with everyone else’s, but the $10,000 alimony payment stayed the same. In order to modify your alimony, I learned it will cost between $15,000 - $30,000. The “payor” (me) has to pay for your own attorney, your ex’s attorney, and all additional expenses. Plus, the attorneys now have clients for life. It’s Permanent Alimony. You’re never completely divorced. You still have a “Financial Marriage” with your ex and their attorneys for the rest of your life.

So not only did my ex-spouse get more than half of everything we owned at the time of the divorce, including properties, savings, half of my business, and 401K, she also has permanently alimony that should support her the rest of her life, unless I die first.

She also has a college degree and has many years before retirement age. Very smart, athletic, and capable, but wouldn’t risk reducing alimony by getting a job that could jeopardize her monthly alimony income. Her attorney has advised her against employment.



So my nightmare is that I’m financially trapped for the rest of my life. I’m at the mercy of the State.
I can’t afford to take a vacation.
My ex-spouse is on a permanent vacation at my expense.
I’m working 6 days a week and many evenings.
She is enjoying her hobbies and playing 7 days a week.
We're the same age.

There is a lifetime “Financial Marriage” that the state has imposed. The wounds of divorce are re-opened every month when the Permanent Alimony check is written.

Post: #18

I'm going to buy myself a gift because of this thread this week. Maybe a sand rail or some other toy dudes that never get married have. Any suggestions?

Post: #19

Holy fuck, that alimonynightmares website is just plain sad.

This video, in particular, is infuriating.

Post: #20

What is stopping these men from upping and leaving the state or hell even the country?

If i was tied to some bitch for 10k a month and the economy hit the shitter, i would leave the country and go to latin america.

Liquidate my assets and wire it to a foreign bank and leave the broad. It would be awesome to take a picture with some hotter and younger woman with us both flipping her the bird. Mail it to her.

Lifetime alimony? Seriously?

Post: #21

(05-02-2013 02:46 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  Even though I am registered Republican, I get the sense many male Republicans have no idea what the fuck is going on. They understand if they ride on their white stallion and protect women, they will get female approval. Beyond that, I don't think understand power, in general, nor how female sexuality works.

They understand all too well how it works. What you have to understand is that there are very few beta politicians out there. You might think someone is beta because they support some shit like VAWA, but in reality that legislation has no real bearing on the politician voting to pass it through the legislature. Nor does it have any bearing on the governor/pres who does or does not sign off. And finally, it has no bearing on the attorneys who make the arguments in court for or against it, or the judges who make the final call. What do all of these people have in common? They all wield power. Some even have a bit of fame. A few have a lot of fame. And the majority of these people rarely get divorced because their wives know that being married to a senator, judge, or governor is the best they're ever going to do. And for those married to litigators who argue cases in high level courts, divorce would be suicidal.

They can pass it or not. It doesn't really matter to them. They won't be impacted by it.

Post: #22

Just, no thanks, anymore.

Post: #23

I'm not surprised more men are not just shooting dead their ex wives who are living off their income. I'm generally surprised this has not happened more in the USA

Post: #24

(05-02-2013 04:16 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  Holy fuck, that alimonynightmares website is just plain sad.

This video, in particular, is infuriating.

Why these poor fucks continue to serve, I will never know.
Think about it, if a group of people decides not to put up with this shit anymore, and secede from the Union, who do you think will try to stop that from happening?
Certainly not the Femcunts.

Post: #25

(05-02-2013 01:52 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Just goes to prove that Republicans are a bunch of white knights like I've been saying all along.

Yeah. I always laugh when people present Republicans as some kind of alternative to the feminist left. Their white knighting is just infused with god and tradition, but it's still awful, destructive and based on lies.