Welfare Was Great...Until Blacks Started Getting It.

[22lcidw]

PAST POLICIES HAVE AN EFFECT ON TODAY!

If you think that's not true then read the constitution.

What politicians approved of in the past affects things in the future. Social Security in the 1930's till now. It helps a lot of people. Was supposed to be part of their life earning finances but for many is their only income. Started as a very small percentage of income and now is 15 per cent of income. And it needs to rise again or increases are needed in other ways including age increases. Every social program is the same. State, local and city governments are also under government mandates to provide services with their own resources. And this does not include their programs. I believe things could be better then what we have today. Even though we throw bull around on the forums.

 

[theHawk]

The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.

Funny, blacks voted for the Democrats back then, the same people that denied those benefits with their Jim Crow laws.

And here you are 90 years later still voting for the same old party.

Blacks voted republican back then. The party of Lincoln. it is right wingers who used to vote democrat until the civil rights movement.

Wrong, the religious right have always voted Republican.
There was never any party change, especially in the 1930’s.

 

[danielpalos]

The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.

Funny, blacks voted for the Democrats back then, the same people that denied those benefits with their Jim Crow laws.

And here you are 90 years later still voting for the same old party.

Blacks voted republican back then. The party of Lincoln. it is right wingers who used to vote democrat until the civil rights movement.

Wrong, the religious right have always voted Republican.
There was never any party change, especially in the 1930’s.

All right wingers allege to have morals. Especially when baking, photographing in public accommodation or in abortion threads.

Right wingers used to vote democrat before the civil rights movement took hold.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.


America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG


The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

Yep -- dig DEEP for your outrage. Like 1935 deep. Things SUCKED in 1935.. Did you not know that?

Never talk about present or future. Welfare STILL Great for whites. Lots more poor whites than blacks.. So -- federal child support AINT RACIST and neither are attempts to MANAGE it..

You mean it AINT RACIST anymore?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So, are you more concerned with advancement or revenge restitution?

We're capable of addressing both.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites.

I'm fairly certain that the majority of taxpayers (Income Tax was instituted in 1913) took umbrage at having to support the indigent regardless of race.

Except they weren't described as "indigent". Who could possible protest against helping a poor unfortunate white widow woman who has lost her husband.

 

[fncceo]

For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites.

I'm fairly certain that the majority of taxpayers (Income Tax was instituted in 1913) took umbrage at having to support the indigent regardless of race.

Except they weren't described as "indigent". Who could possible protest against helping a poor unfortunate white widow woman who has lost her husband.

I suppose it would depend on how she lost him. I mean, did she REALLY look everywhere?

That being said, this sort of charity is best left to religious institutions and other charities. That is WHY they have tax exempt status in the first place.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.


America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG


The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

Yep -- dig DEEP for your outrage. Like 1935 deep. Things SUCKED in 1935.. Did you not know that?

Never talk about present or future. Welfare STILL Great for whites. Lots more poor whites than blacks.. So -- federal child support AINT RACIST and neither are attempts to MANAGE it..

You mean it AINT RACIST anymore?

1935 was the Great DEMOCRAT SAVIOUR -- FDR, that Biden is channeling with his "Go Big" crap.. And IM2 has been brain-fogged to believe that the RACISM DIDN'T START with the key Democrats behind the New Deal.. All pedigreed racists.

It's complicated. Too complicated for USMB.. But the 1935 START of massive social programs was keystoned by the Social Security bill which included the beginning of THREE programs that exist today -- SocSec, ADC (now AFDC) and Old Age Insurance -- the link below explains it.

The RACISM was that the FUNDING for all these programs came from the SAME SOURCE - which were the new "payroll taxes" or FICA payments from employers/employees. In THOSE days, only actual companies had the acccounting and payroll chops to HANDLE that feature.. So the bill EXCLUDED -- AGRICULTURAL AND DOMESTIC WORKERS.. There is the basis for the "racism".. YES -- that affected poor blacks disproportionately, but several sides could be argued here. One is that ALL THOSE PROGRAMS were likely to fail if the CONTRIBUTIONS THRU FICA could not be gleaned from small farms or individuals who hired domestic help.. The other is that the THEN POWERFUL Southern Democrats kinda LIKED the fact that blacks were disproportionally affected.

Social Security Admin has been beat up for DECADES over that decision -- so they have a long - winded paper on their website about the ACTUAL HISTORY of these events. (Link Below)..

Over the years, accounting and payroll got more organized, the exclusions CAME OFF and things progressed. But it wasn't until the 80s and 90s that ALL of this made those programs COMPLETELY "universal"...

The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Alston and Ferrie (1999, chapter 3), in their book Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, offered a variation on this account. They argued that class—in the form of racially based landlord/tenant paternalism—played a stronger role than simple race prejudice or other factors, such as federalism, in shaping the programs under the Social Security Act in general and relative to the coverage exclusions in particular.

Probably the best detailed look at the exclusion issue in the academic literature is provided by Lieberman (1998)—Shifting the Color Line. Lieberman did not suggest that any members of Congress were the direct agents of the coverage exclusions, although he did imply that the coverage exclusions were some-how engineered by Southern members of Congress. Here, for example, is one way he described the exclusions: "the CES's [Committee on Economic Security] decision that all workers should be covered came under immediate and persistent question at the hearings … In the end, an important step behind congressional acceptance of a national program of old-age insurance was the racial manipulation of the program's target population so that a national program was sure to be a segregated one" (39). At another point he summarized the history this way: "In order to pass national old-age and unemployment insurance plans, the Roosevelt administration had to compromise inclusiveness and accept the exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees from the program, with notably imbalanced racial consequences" (25).

As we will see, these kinds of generalizations overlook the degree to which members of the Roosevelt administration were the principal advocates of the coverage exclusions—the administration did not have to "accept" the exclusions; it was the source of the idea.

The fact that many authors have mistaken the evidence in Witte as showing something it manifestly does not is especially surprising because Witte discussed the Title II coverage exclusions in his book, in the section "Exemption of Agriculture and Domestic Service." Here is Witte's (1962) explanation of how the coverage decision came about:

The staff of the Committee on Economic Security recommended that the old age insurance taxes and benefits be limited to industrial workers, excluding persons engaged in agriculture and domestic service. The Committee on Economic Security struck out this limitation and recommended that the old age insurance system be made applicable to all employed persons. This change was made largely at the insistence of Mr. Hopkins, but was favored also by Secretary Perkins.
Subordinate officials in the Treasury, particularly those in charge of internal revenue collections, objected to such inclusive coverage on the score that it would prove administratively impossible to collect payroll taxes from agricultural workers and domestic servants. They persuaded Secretary Morgenthau that the bill must be amended to exclude these groups of workers, to make it administratively feasible. Secretary Morgenthau presented this view in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee … In the executive sessions of the Ways and Means Committee, the recommendations of Secretary Morgenthau were adopted, practically without dissent. (152–154)
So the historical evidence of record tells a very different story than that associated with a racial motivation behind the Title II coverage exclusions. Before we look at the historical evidence in careful detail, we need to examine the logic underlying the race explanation.

Extra credit for any HONEST USMB member that wants to READ THAT and THEN discuss the history of racism in American Welfare...

 

[DudleySmith]

Another joke thread.

Remember, kids, racists like the OP poster are what Patrick Moynihan warned about, a black middle class that promotes hood rat violence to promote and extort big government and corporate bennies for themselves, and have zero interest in genuine progress in the ghettoes; too many good black middle class jobs in 'administration' of poverty programs and 'non-profits' catering to govt. grants.

 

[IM2]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.

How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935

Alma CartenAugust 21, 2016


The ADC was an extension of the state-operated mothers’ pension programs, where white widows were the primary beneficiaries. The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.

How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935

Alma Carten , New York University A recent UNICEF report found that the U.S. ranked 34th on the list of 35 developed countries surveyed on the well-being of children. According to the Pew Institute , children under the age of 18 are the most impoverished age population of Americans, and...

apnews.com

America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG

The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

You blacks sure do love that white privilege welfare system, created by whites for whites.

If you don’t like it, why don’t you try Africa’s welfare system?

You bitch about the government all the time. So get on the first flight back to Europe.

 

[IM2]

Another joke thread.

Remember, kids, racists like the OP poster are what Patrick Moynihan warned about, a black middle class that promotes hood rat violence to promote and extort big government and corporate bennies for themselves, and have zero interest in genuine progress in the ghettoes; too many good black middle class jobs in 'administration' of poverty programs and 'non-profits' catering to govt. grants.

But Patrick Moynihan was wrong.
Another dumb ass white racist opinion.

 

[IM2]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.


America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG


The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

Yep -- dig DEEP for your outrage. Like 1935 deep. Things SUCKED in 1935.. Did you not know that?

Never talk about present or future. Welfare STILL Great for whites. Lots more poor whites than blacks.. So -- federal child support AINT RACIST and neither are attempts to MANAGE it..

You mean it AINT RACIST anymore?

1935 was the Great DEMOCRAT SAVIOUR -- FDR, that Biden is channeling with his "Go Big" crap.. And IM2 has been brain-fogged to believe that the RACISM DIDN'T START with the key Democrats behind the New Deal.. All pedigreed racists.

It's complicated. Too complicated for USMB.. But the 1935 START of massive social programs was keystoned by the Social Security bill which included the beginning of THREE programs that exist today -- SocSec, ADC (now AFDC) and Old Age Insurance -- the link below explains it.

The RACISM was that the FUNDING for all these programs came from the SAME SOURCE - which were the new "payroll taxes" or FICA payments from employers/employees. In THOSE days, only actual companies had the acccounting and payroll chops to HANDLE that feature.. So the bill EXCLUDED -- AGRICULTURAL AND DOMESTIC WORKERS.. There is the basis for the "racism".. YES -- that affected poor blacks disproportionately, but several sides could be argued here. One is that ALL THOSE PROGRAMS were likely to fail if the CONTRIBUTIONS THRU FICA could not be gleaned from small farms or individuals who hired domestic help.. The other is that the THEN POWERFUL Southern Democrats kinda LIKED the fact that blacks were disproportionally affected.

Social Security Admin has been beat up for DECADES over that decision -- so they have a long - winded paper on their website about the ACTUAL HISTORY of these events. (Link Below)..

Over the years, accounting and payroll got more organized, the exclusions CAME OFF and things progressed. But it wasn't until the 80s and 90s that ALL of this made those programs COMPLETELY "universal"...

The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Alston and Ferrie (1999, chapter 3), in their book Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, offered a variation on this account. They argued that class—in the form of racially based landlord/tenant paternalism—played a stronger role than simple race prejudice or other factors, such as federalism, in shaping the programs under the Social Security Act in general and relative to the coverage exclusions in particular.

Probably the best detailed look at the exclusion issue in the academic literature is provided by Lieberman (1998)—Shifting the Color Line. Lieberman did not suggest that any members of Congress were the direct agents of the coverage exclusions, although he did imply that the coverage exclusions were some-how engineered by Southern members of Congress. Here, for example, is one way he described the exclusions: "the CES's [Committee on Economic Security] decision that all workers should be covered came under immediate and persistent question at the hearings … In the end, an important step behind congressional acceptance of a national program of old-age insurance was the racial manipulation of the program's target population so that a national program was sure to be a segregated one" (39). At another point he summarized the history this way: "In order to pass national old-age and unemployment insurance plans, the Roosevelt administration had to compromise inclusiveness and accept the exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees from the program, with notably imbalanced racial consequences" (25).

As we will see, these kinds of generalizations overlook the degree to which members of the Roosevelt administration were the principal advocates of the coverage exclusions—the administration did not have to "accept" the exclusions; it was the source of the idea.

The fact that many authors have mistaken the evidence in Witte as showing something it manifestly does not is especially surprising because Witte discussed the Title II coverage exclusions in his book, in the section "Exemption of Agriculture and Domestic Service." Here is Witte's (1962) explanation of how the coverage decision came about:

The staff of the Committee on Economic Security recommended that the old age insurance taxes and benefits be limited to industrial workers, excluding persons engaged in agriculture and domestic service. The Committee on Economic Security struck out this limitation and recommended that the old age insurance system be made applicable to all employed persons. This change was made largely at the insistence of Mr. Hopkins, but was favored also by Secretary Perkins.
Subordinate officials in the Treasury, particularly those in charge of internal revenue collections, objected to such inclusive coverage on the score that it would prove administratively impossible to collect payroll taxes le. Secretary Morgenthau presented this view in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee … In the executive sessions of the Ways and Means Committee, the recommendations of Secretary Morgenthau were adopted, practically without dissent. (152–154)
So the historical evidence of record tells a very different story than that associated with a racial motivation behind the Title II coverage exclusions. Before we look at the historical evidence in careful detail, we need to examine the logic underlying the race explanation.

Extra credit for any HONEST USMB member that wants to READ THAT and THEN discuss the history of racism in American Welfare...

I know all this. But your dishonestly lies in the fact that northern repubublicans cut deals and compromised with southern racists in order to get provisions of the new deal passed.

 

[IM2]

For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites.

I'm fairly certain that the majority of taxpayers (Income Tax was instituted in 1913) took umbrage at having to support the indigent regardless of race.

Wrong.

 

[IM2]

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me.

Yep.

Now we have many generations of "lazy Black mothers" continuing to procreate - biological fathers largely "out of the picture" - at taxpayer expense. And this is said to be an irrational concern?

Seriously?

Incorrect.

 

[IM2]

The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.

Funny, blacks voted for the Democrats back then, the same people that denied those benefits with their Jim Crow laws.

And here you are 90 years later still voting for the same old party.

Republicans did nothing about Jim Crow.

Blacks voted republican until Hoover fucked over Robert Moton. Moton switched parties because of that and the movement towardds the democratic party began. Still however many blacks stayed with the party even though the party did noting about Jim Crow and in fact helped maintain it.

We damn sure won't be joining the party of the Anglo Saxon heritage caucus.

 

[IM2]

For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites.

I'm fairly certain that the majority of taxpayers (Income Tax was instituted in 1913) took umbrage at having to support the indigent regardless of race.

Except they weren't described as "indigent". Who could possible protest against helping a poor unfortunate white widow woman who has lost her husband.

I suppose it would depend on how she lost him. I mean, did she REALLY look everywhere?

That being said, this sort of charity is best left to religious institutions and other charities. That is WHY they have tax exempt status in the first place.

We pay taxes. We should get a better return on them than we do now.

 

[theHawk]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.

How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935

Alma CartenAugust 21, 2016


The ADC was an extension of the state-operated mothers’ pension programs, where white widows were the primary beneficiaries. The criteria for eligibility and need were state-determined, so blacks continued to be barred from full participation because the country operated under the “separate but equal” doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court in 1896.

Jim Crow Laws and the separate but equal doctrine resulted in the creation of a two-track service delivery system in both law and custom, one for whites and one for blacks that were anything but equal.

How racism has shaped welfare policy in America since 1935

Alma Carten , New York University A recent UNICEF report found that the U.S. ranked 34th on the list of 35 developed countries surveyed on the well-being of children. According to the Pew Institute , children under the age of 18 are the most impoverished age population of Americans, and...

apnews.com

America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG

The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

You blacks sure do love that white privilege welfare system, created by whites for whites.

If you don’t like it, why don’t you try Africa’s welfare system?

You bitch about the government all the time. So get on the first flight back to Europe.

Because America is an extension of European culture.

You speak English, a white mans language. Our entire society is based off English and European culture and law. Made by whites, for whites. I don’t get why you morons think a bunch of white colonists from Europe we’re going to build a new country for Africans in the 1600’s through the 1800’s.

Your ancestors were captured by African tribes and made slaves, and sold to Spanish slave traders. White Americans freed them from the evil Democrats that bought and used them. But for some reason you continue to reject your motherland, and instead prefer the White European society that is America. You’re the one that begs for White Privilege. You want us to pay for your welfare, just like your ancestors were taken care of by their masters.

 

[theHawk]

We damn sure won't be joining the party of the Anglo Saxon heritage caucus

Why not? You speak their language and emulate their culture more than any African culture.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.


America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG


The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

Yep -- dig DEEP for your outrage. Like 1935 deep. Things SUCKED in 1935.. Did you not know that?

Never talk about present or future. Welfare STILL Great for whites. Lots more poor whites than blacks.. So -- federal child support AINT RACIST and neither are attempts to MANAGE it..

You mean it AINT RACIST anymore?

1935 was the Great DEMOCRAT SAVIOUR -- FDR, that Biden is channeling with his "Go Big" crap.. And IM2 has been brain-fogged to believe that the RACISM DIDN'T START with the key Democrats behind the New Deal.. All pedigreed racists.

It's complicated. Too complicated for USMB.. But the 1935 START of massive social programs was keystoned by the Social Security bill which included the beginning of THREE programs that exist today -- SocSec, ADC (now AFDC) and Old Age Insurance -- the link below explains it.

The RACISM was that the FUNDING for all these programs came from the SAME SOURCE - which were the new "payroll taxes" or FICA payments from employers/employees. In THOSE days, only actual companies had the acccounting and payroll chops to HANDLE that feature.. So the bill EXCLUDED -- AGRICULTURAL AND DOMESTIC WORKERS.. There is the basis for the "racism".. YES -- that affected poor blacks disproportionately, but several sides could be argued here. One is that ALL THOSE PROGRAMS were likely to fail if the CONTRIBUTIONS THRU FICA could not be gleaned from small farms or individuals who hired domestic help.. The other is that the THEN POWERFUL Southern Democrats kinda LIKED the fact that blacks were disproportionally affected.

Social Security Admin has been beat up for DECADES over that decision -- so they have a long - winded paper on their website about the ACTUAL HISTORY of these events. (Link Below)..

Over the years, accounting and payroll got more organized, the exclusions CAME OFF and things progressed. But it wasn't until the 80s and 90s that ALL of this made those programs COMPLETELY "universal"...

The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Alston and Ferrie (1999, chapter 3), in their book Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, offered a variation on this account. They argued that class—in the form of racially based landlord/tenant paternalism—played a stronger role than simple race prejudice or other factors, such as federalism, in shaping the programs under the Social Security Act in general and relative to the coverage exclusions in particular.

Probably the best detailed look at the exclusion issue in the academic literature is provided by Lieberman (1998)—Shifting the Color Line. Lieberman did not suggest that any members of Congress were the direct agents of the coverage exclusions, although he did imply that the coverage exclusions were some-how engineered by Southern members of Congress. Here, for example, is one way he described the exclusions: "the CES's [Committee on Economic Security] decision that all workers should be covered came under immediate and persistent question at the hearings … In the end, an important step behind congressional acceptance of a national program of old-age insurance was the racial manipulation of the program's target population so that a national program was sure to be a segregated one" (39). At another point he summarized the history this way: "In order to pass national old-age and unemployment insurance plans, the Roosevelt administration had to compromise inclusiveness and accept the exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees from the program, with notably imbalanced racial consequences" (25).

As we will see, these kinds of generalizations overlook the degree to which members of the Roosevelt administration were the principal advocates of the coverage exclusions—the administration did not have to "accept" the exclusions; it was the source of the idea.

The fact that many authors have mistaken the evidence in Witte as showing something it manifestly does not is especially surprising because Witte discussed the Title II coverage exclusions in his book, in the section "Exemption of Agriculture and Domestic Service." Here is Witte's (1962) explanation of how the coverage decision came about:

The staff of the Committee on Economic Security recommended that the old age insurance taxes and benefits be limited to industrial workers, excluding persons engaged in agriculture and domestic service. The Committee on Economic Security struck out this limitation and recommended that the old age insurance system be made applicable to all employed persons. This change was made largely at the insistence of Mr. Hopkins, but was favored also by Secretary Perkins.
Subordinate officials in the Treasury, particularly those in charge of internal revenue collections, objected to such inclusive coverage on the score that it would prove administratively impossible to collect payroll taxes from agricultural workers and domestic servants. They persuaded Secretary Morgenthau that the bill must be amended to exclude these groups of workers, to make it administratively feasible. Secretary Morgenthau presented this view in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee … In the executive sessions of the Ways and Means Committee, the recommendations of Secretary Morgenthau were adopted, practically without dissent. (152–154)
So the historical evidence of record tells a very different story than that associated with a racial motivation behind the Title II coverage exclusions. Before we look at the historical evidence in careful detail, we need to examine the logic underlying the race explanation.

Extra credit for any HONEST USMB member that wants to READ THAT and THEN discuss the history of racism in American Welfare...

I may take you up on this but I can't tonight, better task for a weekend. I do know however that the Social Security safety net that was created to help Americans explicitly excluded domestic and farm workers, domestic especially being one of the main (and few) roles that African American were allowed to work:

One of the most visible acts of government discrimination against African Americans is the Social Security Act of 1935. A history professor at Columbia University described the United States government with this perfect phrase: "The Jim Crow South was the one collaborator America's democracy could not due without" (Coates). The collaboration that he talks about can be seen everywhere throughout the New Deal legislation. The Social Security Act was designed in such a way that it would exclude farmworkers and domestic workers while protecting the southern way of life. Most specifically farmworkers and domestic workers were excluded from old-age insurance as well as unemployment insurance, jobs that were heavily occupied by African Americans. When President Roosevelt make Social Security into a law, 65 percent of African Americans throughout the nation were ineligible and that percentage got even higher when looking at African Americans in the South. So even though Social Security was a great idea because it would benefit people who were in poverty, the problem now was how to include everyone in this program, eradicating the discrimination against African Americans.​

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/1006971/african_american_economic_security_and_the_role_of_social_security.pdf

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yep, that's what I said.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children whose father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed.

It was a program that was initially only given to whites. For 30 years this was done with no complaints from whites. In those days white women were encouraged to stay home and not work. If no man was there this program took care of white mothers without jobs.


America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That.
April 29, 2021
MICHELLE GOLDBERG


The original Aid to Dependent Children program — which would become Aid to Families With Dependent Children — began during the New Deal. It was meant, as the Supreme Court described it in 1975, “to free widowed and divorced mothers from the necessity of working, so that they could remain home to supervise their children.”

Eligibility was determined by states and localities, which found various ways to exclude Black women. With the civil rights revolution in the 1960s, however, more Black mothers were able to receive benefits. As they did, conservatives started demonizing “welfare mothers” as indolent Black women, even though there continued to be more white women than Black women on A.F.D.C.

In “The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together,” Heather McGhee detailed how support for public goods collapsed among white people once Black people had access to them. This very much includes relief for parents and children.

“The fear of lazy Black mothers who would reproduce without working goes really deep in this country,” McGhee told me. It’s hard to imagine how a proposal for automatic cash payments to families could have gone anywhere during decades of moral panic about Black mothers luxuriating on the dole.

Opinion | America Is Brutal to Parents. Biden Is Trying to Change That. (Published 2021)

We're finally on the cusp of a humane family policy.

www.nytimes.com

Yep -- dig DEEP for your outrage. Like 1935 deep. Things SUCKED in 1935.. Did you not know that?

Never talk about present or future. Welfare STILL Great for whites. Lots more poor whites than blacks.. So -- federal child support AINT RACIST and neither are attempts to MANAGE it..

You mean it AINT RACIST anymore?

1935 was the Great DEMOCRAT SAVIOUR -- FDR, that Biden is channeling with his "Go Big" crap.. And IM2 has been brain-fogged to believe that the RACISM DIDN'T START with the key Democrats behind the New Deal.. All pedigreed racists.

It's complicated. Too complicated for USMB.. But the 1935 START of massive social programs was keystoned by the Social Security bill which included the beginning of THREE programs that exist today -- SocSec, ADC (now AFDC) and Old Age Insurance -- the link below explains it.

The RACISM was that the FUNDING for all these programs came from the SAME SOURCE - which were the new "payroll taxes" or FICA payments from employers/employees. In THOSE days, only actual companies had the acccounting and payroll chops to HANDLE that feature.. So the bill EXCLUDED -- AGRICULTURAL AND DOMESTIC WORKERS.. There is the basis for the "racism".. YES -- that affected poor blacks disproportionately, but several sides could be argued here. One is that ALL THOSE PROGRAMS were likely to fail if the CONTRIBUTIONS THRU FICA could not be gleaned from small farms or individuals who hired domestic help.. The other is that the THEN POWERFUL Southern Democrats kinda LIKED the fact that blacks were disproportionally affected.

Social Security Admin has been beat up for DECADES over that decision -- so they have a long - winded paper on their website about the ACTUAL HISTORY of these events. (Link Below)..

Over the years, accounting and payroll got more organized, the exclusions CAME OFF and things progressed. But it wasn't until the 80s and 90s that ALL of this made those programs COMPLETELY "universal"...

The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

www.ssa.gov

Alston and Ferrie (1999, chapter 3), in their book Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, offered a variation on this account. They argued that class—in the form of racially based landlord/tenant paternalism—played a stronger role than simple race prejudice or other factors, such as federalism, in shaping the programs under the Social Security Act in general and relative to the coverage exclusions in particular.

Probably the best detailed look at the exclusion issue in the academic literature is provided by Lieberman (1998)—Shifting the Color Line. Lieberman did not suggest that any members of Congress were the direct agents of the coverage exclusions, although he did imply that the coverage exclusions were some-how engineered by Southern members of Congress. Here, for example, is one way he described the exclusions: "the CES's [Committee on Economic Security] decision that all workers should be covered came under immediate and persistent question at the hearings … In the end, an important step behind congressional acceptance of a national program of old-age insurance was the racial manipulation of the program's target population so that a national program was sure to be a segregated one" (39). At another point he summarized the history this way: "In order to pass national old-age and unemployment insurance plans, the Roosevelt administration had to compromise inclusiveness and accept the exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees from the program, with notably imbalanced racial consequences" (25).

As we will see, these kinds of generalizations overlook the degree to which members of the Roosevelt administration were the principal advocates of the coverage exclusions—the administration did not have to "accept" the exclusions; it was the source of the idea.

The fact that many authors have mistaken the evidence in Witte as showing something it manifestly does not is especially surprising because Witte discussed the Title II coverage exclusions in his book, in the section "Exemption of Agriculture and Domestic Service." Here is Witte's (1962) explanation of how the coverage decision came about:

The staff of the Committee on Economic Security recommended that the old age insurance taxes and benefits be limited to industrial workers, excluding persons engaged in agriculture and domestic service. The Committee on Economic Security struck out this limitation and recommended that the old age insurance system be made applicable to all employed persons. This change was made largely at the insistence of Mr. Hopkins, but was favored also by Secretary Perkins.
Subordinate officials in the Treasury, particularly those in charge of internal revenue collections, objected to such inclusive coverage on the score that it would prove administratively impossible to collect payroll taxes le. Secretary Morgenthau presented this view in his testimony before the Ways and Means Committee … In the executive sessions of the Ways and Means Committee, the recommendations of Secretary Morgenthau were adopted, practically without dissent. (152–154)
So the historical evidence of record tells a very different story than that associated with a racial motivation behind the Title II coverage exclusions. Before we look at the historical evidence in careful detail, we need to examine the logic underlying the race explanation.

Extra credit for any HONEST USMB member that wants to READ THAT and THEN discuss the history of racism in American Welfare...

I know all this. But your dishonestly lies in the fact that northern repubublicans cut deals and compromised with southern racists in order to get provisions of the new deal passed.

Hey IM2, I learned all of this from you. You filled in a large gap in my history, thank you