These were your exact words.
You're too emotional to engage in simple conversation cause it clouds your logic. Even your "evidence" doesn't correlate with what you're talking about.
The case which you provided does not support your argument. You're comparing apples to oranges. I don't think you even understand what you copied and pasted from somewhere else. The case in question is talking about considering the "side piece" as a father figure to be used to disqualify the family from receiving government assistance. She argued that he is not her children's father and thus, he owes no obligation to the children, so she and her children should still qualify for government assistance.. The courts ruled in her favor stating that he isn't the children's father, so he owes no financial obligation to her nor her children. Something that might actually help you would be the 1968 civil rights act which addressed a myriad of issues including welfare in which it was ruled that states are permitted, but not required to provide welfare to a two-parent household. So technically, if they still wanted to reject families from getting aid because a man was in the household, they could still do it.
Again, it is not a myth. It is documented. I provided you with a news article covering it from a reputable source, but instead, you pretended to not see it and respond. I will provide it to you again. Also, if you think that because the supreme court decided on a case, it would somehow stop states and state courts from still doing their own thing, then you don't know what you're talking about. Do your googles and go look up non-compliance and the disobeying of the supreme courts by state courts and you'll see tons of examples.
Welfare's unintended consequences
Glenn McNattTHE BALTIMORE SUN
ONE OF the crueler ironies in the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots has been the suggestion, particularly on the part of conservatives, that the real cause of the violence was not racism or poverty but crumbling inner-city families.
The inner-city family has fallen apart, the argument goes, and thus an entire generation of young people has come of age without proper "values." It's all the fault of the liberal social welfare policies of the 1960s, President Bush said recently.
That's a neat formula for evading the responsibility three successive GOP administrations bear for the neglect of America's cities.
The irony, of course, is that conservatives were the ones who insisted on making family breakups a condition for welfare. Remember the "man in the house" rule? That was the one that said families couldn't get assistance if there was an able-bodied man in the house. It was enacted because opponents of welfare, particularly Southern conservatives, simply couldn't abide the idea of government "handouts" to male heads-of-household.
So if a man lost his job, he literally had to leave home if he wanted his children to be eligible for government surplus cheese, beans and peanut butter. Somehow conservatives persuaded themselves that this encouraged "family values."
With the advantage of 20-20 hindsight it's easy to see how the policy had exactly the opposite effect. It accelerated the fragmentation of poor families at just the time low-skilled factory jobs were disappearing. The expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s coincided with the decline of the factory economy in the worst possible way because the no-man-in-the-house rule actually encouraged the breakup of stable, two-parent families.
Conservatives like to talk about the "law of unintended consequences" -- by which they mean the difficulty of predicting the long-term effects of government social policies. Welfare hasn't worked, they argue, because it only produces more dependency.
Yet dependency clearly is a function of the great increase in single-parent, female-headed households over the last 20 years. And that, in turn, was at least in part an unintended consequence of punitive welfare rules that forced poor men to chose between abandoning their children or watching them starve. We are still paying for that mean-spirited policy in Los Angeles and other cities across America.
Doubtless other factors played a role in the break-up of two-parent families over the last generation -- higher divorce rates, teen pregnancy, the corrosive commercial values purveyed by popular music, movies and television. But the no "man in the house" rule was a classic example of how a government social policy aimed at assisting poor families actually undermined them.
If you doubt that, consider this: What would the result have been if the rule had required just the opposite of what it in fact demanded of poor families -- that is, in order to receive assistance, both parents had to live at home with their children?
Glenn McNatt is an editorial writer for The Sun and Evening Sun.
Welfare's unintended consequences - Baltimore Sun
www.sunsigns.org
Anyone that reads past twitter headlines could've easily shot down that harmful mess he was saying. That man gaslighted that her and made her look more & more pathetic as the video went on.
www.businessinsider.com
