Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

[Anonymous]

I'm sure members of the 'Moms for Liberty' chapter of Florida don't mind, do they ?


“The so-called party of ‘family values’ has just contributed to erosion of the institution of marriage in Florida,” a critic said about the 2023 bill. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/01/desantis-signs-florida-alimony-overhaul-after-years-of-vetoes/70375186007/

[Anonymous]

if anybody had any doubt... it is the boys party ( not mens... men pay their alimony(

[Anonymous]

Leopards are their faces

"“He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday."

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/01/desantis-signs-florida-alimony-overhaul-after-years-of-vetoes/70375186007/

[Anonymous]

Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

Shouldn't you go back to the Kevin Costner thread you've been camped out on the past couple of days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

Shouldn't you go back to the Kevin Costner thread you've been camped out on the past couple of days?

Shouldn’t you get a job instead of relying on alimony, you lazy bum?

[Anonymous]

Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

I see both sides.

I can understand older women keeping their permanent alimony since they came of age in a time when they weren't necessarily encouraged to get jobs. Their numbers are obviously dwindling.

A "normal" couple who are equals in earnings (even if man earns slightly more) and they aren't an older couple - I can see why the wife in that case shouldn't get lifetime alimony (were they?)

A couple in which one of them (usually the husband) was a mega-earner and this is the first spouse. Usually in cases like that, the woman would have given up her job in order to support the husband/family - she loses out on years work experience. She most likely couldn't easily jump back into the work force at a well paying job. In that case, I would have no problem with her getting permanent alimony.

A second wife who divorces? Meh, it depends on the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

They’re Not Like The Other Girls, they think they’re people in their party. Fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

+100

[Anonymous]

Regardless of what you make of the policy - do you think this is how PFD wins over the women who are saying they increasingly hate him?

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/620830-ron-63-women/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

Because we are in charge of our bodies and can provide for ourselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

I see both sides.

I can understand older women keeping their permanent alimony since they came of age in a time when they weren't necessarily encouraged to get jobs. Their numbers are obviously dwindling.

A "normal" couple who are equals in earnings (even if man earns slightly more) and they aren't an older couple - I can see why the wife in that case shouldn't get lifetime alimony (were they?)

A couple in which one of them (usually the husband) was a mega-earner and this is the first spouse. Usually in cases like that, the woman would have given up her job in order to support the husband/family - she loses out on years work experience. She most likely couldn't easily jump back into the work force at a well paying job. In that case, I would have no problem with her getting permanent alimony.

A second wife who divorces? Meh, it depends on the situation.

If a husband is a mega earner then they’re hiring nannies, au pairs, cleaning staff for the house, and even people to prep food. There are no guarantees in life. You get divorced, too bad. You can go to work bartending, waiting tables, doing administrative support, etc.

Why should your ex fund your lifestyle for years after a divorce and on into retirement. Absurd. Get a job like the millions of other working class people who’ll have to keep working into old age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

I see both sides.

I can understand older women keeping their permanent alimony since they came of age in a time when they weren't necessarily encouraged to get jobs. Their numbers are obviously dwindling.

A "normal" couple who are equals in earnings (even if man earns slightly more) and they aren't an older couple - I can see why the wife in that case shouldn't get lifetime alimony (were they?)

A couple in which one of them (usually the husband) was a mega-earner and this is the first spouse. Usually in cases like that, the woman would have given up her job in order to support the husband/family - she loses out on years work experience. She most likely couldn't easily jump back into the work force at a well paying job. In that case, I would have no problem with her getting permanent alimony.

A second wife who divorces? Meh, it depends on the situation.

I agree that it should be on a case-by-case basis.

[Anonymous]

Whoops. Hope all those older Florida women who were at the Trump rallies are happy!