Should being a housewife be subsidized by the government? Requirements

fuck no

>>131418494
>Should being a housewife be subsidized by the government?
No, nothing should be subsidized by the government. Subsidies are ruining everything.

that's not a housewife tho "wink"

>>131418494
>>131420324
stop making those threads already

>>131418494
Ridiculous question (if it's serious).

What the government should NOT do is stymie/ obstruct/ whatever the ability of a man (ANY and EVERY man, of every "color") to have the ability to support his wife and family (Not every couple can, physically, have children.) on his income alone.
Not by "affirmative action", quotas of any kind, any and every tax or "penalty", or any other "law" to the detriment of a man to obtain gainful employment.

Further, promoting and enabling corporations and companies exploiting their employees; to the detriment of society and the economy shouldn't be happening, either ("trade agreements", corporate welfare and "tax breaks"/ incentives/ whatever).

Because of divorce, it may be necessary for some women with dependent children to work. Otherwise, the higher paying jobs should be restricted to men with wives and families to support.

Yes, this would dramatically reduce tax revenues if only one partner is working (Hello).

Disclaimer: I was raised by a divorced mother who did not receive child support (by choice). She worked a second job to supplement her job as a secretary and later, as an administrative assistant, so that we had good Christmases and a modest vacation.
I have not worked outside the home for almost 31 years. We don't "do without" by any means, but we don't waste money on things like cable tv, data plans on our cell phones, or going out a lot, either.

It isn't necessary to "subsidize" anything- just stop manipulating, exploiting, and government (and Wall Street) sucking the people dry. We're about bled out.