What can anyone add to this?
Do you blame the young mom who really believes it’s all hers, because after all, the system here has told her it’s all free for the taking. And so she is.
She’s old enough of course to know damn well better. But does she truly do know better? Bah. This is a product of a state that has gone overboard and told ppl that they are entitled. Do you then blame the taker? Is there much of a difference between her and a corporation like Starbucks, who earn in the BILLIONS but manage to find legal loopholes so they pay miniscule tax in a country making them those billions? I realize it’s more like apples and oranges but unless the tax people close the loopholes, corporations will quite naturally use them. In the case of this woman, the state has co-operated with her and perhaps even encouraged her to take full legal advantage of the state. And so she has. And she isn’t the only one. There are hundreds of them out there. Maybe thousands.
Her values are surely skewed but who skewed them for her? Who made it oh so easy? Well, for one, the benefits people themselves. Here’s a quote for you to ponder from the lady herself.
“The people at the Job Centre have actually told me I’m better off on benefits than in a minimum-wage job. It’s the system’s fault. My kids would suffer if I worked. This way, taxpayers know I’m raising two well-brought-up kids.”
But it never occurs to her that it’s being done on other people’s money.
She manages to save a couple thousand to splurge on Christmas gifts. Never occurs to her who actually own the money she is saving.
It also has not occurred to her that she might look to the future and try and get more of an education. But no. The state has promised her that all would be well.
She became a mother while still almost a kid herself. What are the chances her two “accidents” won’t follow the same path?
Although it has nothing to do with the story I can’t help but bring it up.
What’s with the made up dumb ass names for her daughters? And look closely at the photos. She plays straight into the stereotype. But we must not say that because to notice the fact is to be raaaaacist. Not intended but ok. So be it.
Story and photo from The Daily Mail
Unemployed single mother on benefits who spends £2,000 on Christmas with 20 presents for each of her children
* Leanna Broderick plans to give children designer outfits, iPads and jewellery
* The 20-year-old has never worked and claims nearly £15,500 a year ( $24,974.00 )
* Claims she is better off on benefits and last year saved £2,500 ( just a bit over $4,000.00 )
* Said there was ‘no point’ getting minimum wage job and paying for childcare
By Rosie Taylor
While many families are worrying about how to afford Christmas this year, one jobless single mother has revealed she receives so much in benefits she has £2,000 to spend on designer gifts, clothes and partying.
Mother-of-two Leanna Broderick plans to buy 20 presents for each of her children, including Burberry and Ralph Lauren outfits, iPads and gold jewellery.
The 20-year-old, who has never worked, claims nearly £15,500 a year in state handouts.
She claims she is better off on benefits and would not get a job unless she could continue her luxury lifestyle, which includes designer outfits, holidays abroad, clubbing, lunches out and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.
‘Last year, I saved £2,500 and my kids had 50 presents each, including Burberry and Ralph Lauren clothes and dolls, DVDs and CDs.
‘This year, I’ve saved £2,000 and they’ll get 20 presents each, including iPads and a new Disney-themed bedroom to share, with designer wall art and bed linen,’ she said.
She is also buying gold earrings for Zelekah, who has pierced ears, and keeping £300 for the sales and £150 for a New Year’s Eve outing.
Miss Broderick, who left school at 16 with no GCSEs, said: ‘I don’t care if people get annoyed. I don’t take advantage, I just choose to save – it’s smart.’
She said there was ‘no point’ earning less in a minimum wage job and having to pay for childcare on top.
I’ll stay on benefits and get as much as I can out of it.’
After becoming pregnant at 17 with her on-off 23-year-old boyfriend, Miss Broderick was allocated a temporary three-bed council house.
When Zelekah was eight months old she considered working in care, but then became pregnant again by the same man.
Now split from the girls’ father, she has a new two-bedroom council flat in Croydon, South London, with a garden, which is paid for by her £111 weekly housing benefit – part of £1,290 a month total claim.
She said: ‘I didn’t want to miss out on my kids’ childhoods or have someone else raise them. I’m not one of those girls who gets pregnant for the benefits.’
The money for Christmas comes from the £250 she saves each month, which she said shows she is ‘really responsible’.
She adds: ‘Anyone who thinks people on benefits don’t deserve nice things is talking rubbish. I work 24/7 as a mother.
‘This way, taxpayers know I’m raising two well-brought-up kids.’
But she admits Christmas might not be so lavish next year because of the Government’s benefit cuts.
‘I’m not against the cuts, but only if the Government helps me find a job,’ she said.
‘In the meantime, I’ll stay on benefits and get as much as I can out of it.’
And where is the daddy in all of this?
Most likely unemployed himself and on benefits as well, so no hope of child support there.
And yet those same folks here voted for four more years of that kind of thinking at the federal level.
Yeah Baby, thats what I’m talkin about,FREE SHIT! Suck it you loser working stiffs,WE WON!
Or something like that.Sound about right Gang??
Rich, NO Lie, speaking of the same kind of folks.
Do not forget. The kind of people who give her all this “FREE” stuff, were knocking on doors working for Obama’s election. I do NOT mean Americans. I mean folks from here in England who went to the USA and worked as volunteers for him. How’s that grab ya?