Dependency 6

The Obama campaign has created a dependent woman named “Julia”.

It’s a kindergarten presentation, made to woo the votes of the stupid – which in the minds of the Obama clique probably means the entire electorate.

Derek Hunter sums up the story of Julia the Parasite in an article at Townhall:

As a child, Julia is shuttled off to a Head Start program at age 3 that even the government says is a waste of money and makes no difference in the future academic success of children. The site touts President Obama’s commitment to Head Start, which makes sense because it’s a big government failure.

Next we see Julia at age 17, ready to take the SAT and apply to college. It’s not because she’s smart or because of her hard work, it’s because President Obama’s Race to the Top program dumped more cash into the coffers of teachers unions.

There’s nothing about any work put in by Julia to accomplish what she has …

At 18, Julia is ready to suckle the government teat for money for college. Her parents, who finally enter the story, get a $10,000 tax credit, and she gets a Pell Grant. The site says this “puts a college education within reach.” … Missing from this lovely story is any sense Julia plans to pay for any of this herself. Did she qualify for scholarships? Did she work on the side? Did she take any responsibility for herself or just rely on government handouts?

When she’s 22, Julia needs some sort of surgery. They don’t say what kind, but I’m assuming parasites since she’s presumably hanging around Occupy Wall Street camps. The Obama campaign says she’s fine because of Obamacare and the ability to stay on her parents’ insurance until she’s 26. …

The next year, Julia is a web designer and ready to sue her employer under the Lilly Ledbetter law because she thinks a man might be getting paid more than her, regardless of whether he’s better at the job or otherwise a more valuable employee. She made a deal. She agreed to work for a certain wage. But then she caught wind someone else made a better deal, and naturally, that entitles her to the other person’s deal.

This is fiction, of course, because there’s no way Julia finds a job right out of college in Obama’s economy. But saying “Julia is depressed, drinks a lot and moved back home hoping to get a job at McDonald’s so she can have some money beyond her food stamps” doesn’t so much convey the message they’re trying to put out here.

Somehow she graduates at 25 – even though she’s the only college student in the country working in her chosen field since age 23 – and, thanks to her hero, President Obama, is ready to start repaying her student loans. She then becomes the only student in recent history who “makes her payment on time every month.”   …

At 27, Julia is happy again because … “Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.” Julia is relieved of the burden of spending $9 a month at Wal-Mart to buy her own birth control. This comes in handy if she’s sexually assaulted at an Occupy Wall Street camp, even though progressives and the media tell her the camps are perfectly safe. But don’t worry, Julia. Obamacare will cover your therapy, too!

When she turns 31, she gets pregnant. Who is the father? Who knows? No one in the Obama campaign cares either. Who needs a dad when you’ve got government? …

When her son, Zachary, is old enough to go to kindergarten, he’s shipped off to school and never, ever heard from again. Thanks to President Obama, schools are so awesome you can just give your kids to them and government will take care of the rest. Parenting is for suckers anyway. Well, not for his kids in their elite private school, but for your kids.

At 42 (and apparently childless again), Julia starts a web business with a Small Business Administration loan. Why Julia felt the need to borrow money to start a business millions of people start from home at minimal expense would be a mystery until you recall how she has relied on government to take care of her since the moment she was born. No one sacrifices for success anymore. They’re entitled to it.

The next time we hear from Julia, she is 65 and signing up for Medicare. This is funny because it assumes Medicare will still be around when Julia not only turns 25, but 65.

The real comedy hits when Julia is 67. It says, “After years of contributing to Social Security, she receives monthly benefits that help her retire comfortably, without worrying that she’ll run out of savings.”  … This occurs even though you can’t survive on Social Security alone today. But Julia lives in a world where government takes care of you every step of the way.

Missing from all of this Julia garbage is the fact the country is broke and Julia probably speaks Chinese now since they would own everything.

Never once does it talk about how well Julia does, how successful she becomes. Mostly because she won’t in Obama’s economy, but also because success isn’t really the goal … dependence is. If she becomes wealthy, she could think for herself … she could become the enemy.

Julia lives a lonely life, her son long since gone and forgotten, until she gets cancer at age 71, and the descendents of the bureaucrats Obama empowered to make everyone’s health care decisions for them deem her treatment too expensive and condemn her to death in a government nursing home.

No, of course, that’s not really part of the [Obama campaign] narrative.

You know what else is not part of the narrative? That she never once stood on her own. If Republicans had created Julia, this would be cause for uproar among feminists. But if Obama said she needed to live a life of dependency, who are they to argue?

Julia’s life has replaced what 100 years ago would’ve been “the role of a man in her life” with government. Julia is not a strong woman. She’s a weak stereotype who depends on big brother for everything in her life.

According to polls, this sort of cradle-to-grave government dependency is appealing to a large percentage of women. This should bother those feminists who tell us constantly they don’t need a man; they can take care of themselves. They don’t need a man but only because they have President Obama and his trillions of [borrowed] dollars … to meet their every need.

You’ve come a long way, baby…full circle, in fact, right back to where you started.

Self-reliance is best for everyone; but if a person has to be dependent, it must be better to depend on another individual, on a personal relationship with mutual interests, shared responsibilities, reciprocity of assistance, than on the impersonal State with which no negotiation is possible.

The State has the power to force compliance. It is not concerned with individuals. It makes rules to fit all. If it is allowed to be the chief or sole source of livelihood, it has the power to withhold what it gives and destroy you. That is the nature of the socialist State. Its citizens have traded in their freedom (however involuntarily) for “security” – cradle-to-grave provision of their needs. But that sort of security is an illusion. The only security anyone can rely on is his own ability and determination to provide his (her) wants for himself (and his own) as soon as he is old enough to end his dependency on his parents.

It strikes us that Julia is the antithesis of Sarah Palin, the woman who, with her husband, hunts and fishes and builds her own house, and thinks for herself and succeeds by using her own brains, abilities, energy, and earned money.

Which of course is why leftists, and especially the feminists of the left, hate Sarah Palin.

  • regeya

    “Sarah Palin, the woman who, with her husband, hunts and fishes and builds her own house, and thinks for herself and succeeds by using her own brains, abilities, energy, and earned money”

    Alternate universes exist, and as evidence, here’s a blog post from one.

    • Jillian Becker

      What part of what we’ve said about Sarah Palin is not true, regeya?

  • Harold

    She is hardly dependant, since she makes all her student loan repayments on time.  She therefore does pay for herself.  She works as a productive employee, adding value to the economy.  She then runs a small business – surely a conservative ideal?  It actually says that she employs people and grows  the local economy. 

    The point of the story is that she had relatively small inputs of help from the Govt which enabled her to do all these things.

    You may not agree that the small inputs would actually acheive this, but the story is consistent.

    There are valid criticisms of each stage, but they are not really made in the article.  Obama campaign says Head Start helps kids from poorer backgrounds.  Hunter says Head Start is a big failure.  I don’t know who is right, but I do know that good quality nursery education for 3-4 year olds correlates strongly with success at school.  I don’t know whether Obama’s or Romney’s poilicies will lead to more good quality3-4 year old nursery places.

    The anti-feminist bit at the end is where it goes totally off the rails.  “She’s a weak stereotype who depends on big brother for everything in her life.”  As stated above, she has graduated from college, worked all her life, paid back her loans, paid her taxes, and grown the economy through running a business. 

    To say she has replaced “the role of a man in her life” with Govt shows a very old fashioned view.  It implies that a man would have provided small amounts of money at strategic places in her life, and thats it.  I would hope there would be some sort of deeper relationship.

    • I see your points at the micro level, but it seems to me that you are missing the bigger picture.  I think it is downright scary that the Obama administration is “bragging” about how government intervention enabled Julia to be a success.  That completely goes against the capitalistic model.  I do believe that some social safety nets need to be in place, but they should be last-ditch necessities, not crutches put in place to help us along.

      This is directly opposed to how the USA operates, and, I contend, what makes this country so great.  Americans are FREE to do as they choose, the government stays out of the way, and each individual lives with the consequences of their choices and actions.

      Also, every government dollar given to Julia, is TAKEN from someone else.  It drives me crazy how liberals always seem to forget this simple fact.  Let’s also not forget how all these entitlements are on their way to bankruptcy.

      For the Obama administration to be touting these handouts as the cornerstone successes in his last four years is nuts.  The fact that he may win a majority of votes in Nov is SCARY.  That would mean a majority of our electorate believes that going down the path to an entitlement society is a good thing.  If that’s true, it’s just a matter of time before we say “bye-bye” to the USA we know and love.

      If politicians just keep getting voted in by how much they give people, it’s “game over.”

      • Harold

        My point is that Hunter is missing the bigger picture.  On each point, he fails to argue why he thinks the Obama policy is wrong , and instead argues that it has made Julia dependent and weak.  In the story, it has made Julia independent and strong.  Hunter has failed to address the consequences of these policies.  Julia is clearly better off for thharold@em.  Surely, to refute them, you must argue that more people are made worse off.  Instead he argues that Julia herself is made worse off through being “dependent” on the state instead of relying on her man to sort out her problems.  This sort of argument is not going to get the female vote. 

        • Oh – ok.  I see what you are saying.  Instead of claiming that Julia is the one who is weak and suffering, Hunter should have made the point that these policies are bad for America as a whole.  But, actually, Julia is doing ok, so saying she is somehow the loser here is not driving the point home.

          And, actually, I do now agree with you.  Certain individuals are certainly made better off by social welfare policies, even though those same policies may be sending the country down the tubes.