- Mar 11, 2015
- 78,948
- 40,254
- 2,645
The problem with people talking about how LBJ's Great Society Program damaged the black famility is that it is a lie. So let's start with the fact that the no man in the house rule which was blamed on Johnson was created by conservatives. That rule lasted from 1964 until 1968. A black woman took that to court and it was ended by the Supreme Court. So the Great Society has nothing to do with anything. But as I have posted before welfare started long before LBJ. So let's look at another handout whites have been given by the government.
Mothers' pensions, also referred to as mothers' aid or widows' aid, were cash payments distributed to impoverished single mothers in the United States during the first three decades of the 20th century. Introduced during the Progressive Era, they were among the earliest components of the modern American welfare state and were the first public cash assistance programs targeted to single mothers.
Mother's pensions were aimed at family preservation, intending to provide the means for poor single mothers to care for their children in their own homes. While primarily targeted at widows, they were also sometimes authorized for women whose husbands had deserted them, were confined to mental hospitals or prisons, or were physically or mentally incapacitated. They were financed and administered by state and local governments, and served as a precursor to the federal Aid to Dependent Children program created by the Social Security Act of 1935
en.wikipedia.org
In King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court entertained a challenge to the man-in-the-house rule brought by the four children of Mrs. Sylvester Smith, a widow. These children were denied benefits by Dallas County, Alabama, welfare authorities, based on their knowledge that a man named Williams was visiting Smith on weekends and had sexual relations with her.
The children of Smith filed a CLASS ACTION suit in federal court on behalf of other children in Alabama who were denied benefits under Alabama's "substitute father" regulation. This regulation considered a man a substitute father if (1) he lived in the home with the mother; (2) he visited the home frequently for the purpose of living with the mother; or (3) he cohabited with the mother elsewhere (King, citing Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance, pt. I, ch. II, § VI). Testimony in the case revealed that there was some confusion among the authorities over how to interpret the regulation. One official testified that the regulation applied only if the parties had sex at least once a week, another official testified that sex every three months was sufficient, and still another placed the frequency at once every six months.
According to the High Court, Congress did not intend that the AFDC program require children "to look for their food to a man who is not in the least obliged to support them." The Court maintained that when Congress used the term parent in the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, it was referring to "an individual who owed to the child a state-imposed legal duty of support." Ultimately, the Court struck down the man-in-the-house rule by holding that under the AFDC provisions in the Social Security Act, "destitute children who are legally fatherless cannot be flatly denied federally funded assistance on the transparent fiction that they have a substitute father."
Man-in-the-House Rule - Children, Regulation, Court, and Benefits - JRank Articles Man-in-the-House Rule
So the claim of black families being incentivized by government to have children out of wedlock is another untrue claim because that "incentive" was killed in 1968.
Mothers' pensions
Mothers' pensions, also referred to as mothers' aid or widows' aid, were cash payments distributed to impoverished single mothers in the United States during the first three decades of the 20th century. Introduced during the Progressive Era, they were among the earliest components of the modern American welfare state and were the first public cash assistance programs targeted to single mothers.
Mother's pensions were aimed at family preservation, intending to provide the means for poor single mothers to care for their children in their own homes. While primarily targeted at widows, they were also sometimes authorized for women whose husbands had deserted them, were confined to mental hospitals or prisons, or were physically or mentally incapacitated. They were financed and administered by state and local governments, and served as a precursor to the federal Aid to Dependent Children program created by the Social Security Act of 1935
Mothers' pensions - Wikipedia
Man-in-the-House Rule
In 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the regulation as being contrary to the legislative goals of the Aid to Families of Dependent Children (AFDC) program.In King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 88 S. Ct. 2128, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court entertained a challenge to the man-in-the-house rule brought by the four children of Mrs. Sylvester Smith, a widow. These children were denied benefits by Dallas County, Alabama, welfare authorities, based on their knowledge that a man named Williams was visiting Smith on weekends and had sexual relations with her.
The children of Smith filed a CLASS ACTION suit in federal court on behalf of other children in Alabama who were denied benefits under Alabama's "substitute father" regulation. This regulation considered a man a substitute father if (1) he lived in the home with the mother; (2) he visited the home frequently for the purpose of living with the mother; or (3) he cohabited with the mother elsewhere (King, citing Alabama Manual for Administration of Public Assistance, pt. I, ch. II, § VI). Testimony in the case revealed that there was some confusion among the authorities over how to interpret the regulation. One official testified that the regulation applied only if the parties had sex at least once a week, another official testified that sex every three months was sufficient, and still another placed the frequency at once every six months.
According to the High Court, Congress did not intend that the AFDC program require children "to look for their food to a man who is not in the least obliged to support them." The Court maintained that when Congress used the term parent in the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, it was referring to "an individual who owed to the child a state-imposed legal duty of support." Ultimately, the Court struck down the man-in-the-house rule by holding that under the AFDC provisions in the Social Security Act, "destitute children who are legally fatherless cannot be flatly denied federally funded assistance on the transparent fiction that they have a substitute father."
Man-in-the-House Rule - Children, Regulation, Court, and Benefits - JRank Articles Man-in-the-House Rule
So the claim of black families being incentivized by government to have children out of wedlock is another untrue claim because that "incentive" was killed in 1968.
