Hundreds Of Black Women In Georgia Will Get $850 Per Month In Guaranteed Income

[GoAggieGo.]

Another bytch ass njgga

So sassy.
Your closer to bytch than I’ll ever be, though

 

[LurkMoar]

UBI

yang Gang

 

[CrimsonTider]

So sassy.
Your closer to bytch than I’ll ever be, though

I’ll make you my bytch

 

[GoAggieGo.]

I’ll make you my bytch

Again, you’re closer to bytch than me.

 

[calixprynce]

You crab ass nikka. Get that hate out your heart.

getting dressed at Celine , I don’t need no iron
5 star plates , I ain’t eatin at no diner
Stuff a 8th in a wood , I don’t need no grinder

 

[HARLEM AL]

they're literally the most oppressed demographic.

This isnt true

Its really black boys... But know one wants to have that conversation..

 

[Antwon Mitchell]

I was gonna say something possibly meaningful but this thread is all over the place so nvm

Some of the comments on the first few pages reek of “” beliefs tho.

 

[ORDER_66]

You mean to tell me black WOMEN can't be their own demographic? Don't answer that question.

white media talking points no other ethnic groups does this between male and female!!! Stop falling for the trick bag!!!

 

[Kornball The Conqueror]

This isnt true

Its really black boys... But know one wants to have that conversation..

black males aren't counted

 

[EARFQUAKE]

white media talking points no other ethnic groups does this between male and female!!! Stop falling for the trick bag!!!

There's actually contradiction to what you're saying as the white media groups ALL black people together whereas ACTUAL BLACK PEOPLE who know our issues better than anyone can dissect specific issues. Next.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

I have so many feelings inside about this. But once again, misrepresentations and lies about black women strike again. Its hard to have conversations about shyt like this because so many people BELIEVE so many damn lies about social welfare programs and black women that I have to clear out all the bullshyt before we can even have a cogent fukking conversation about the shyt.

So many questions.
This is Pt 1.

1.) First off, why do people think Welfare pushed black men out of the homes and buy into racist theories about "gubment handouts" and "welfare queens"?

Spoiler: Research! Grrrrr

Yes, there were "man-in-the-house" raids when welfare first started and they didn't allow two-headed families to participate. This is where they would literally unconstitutionally kick down the doors of black family homes to determine if a man was living there if a woman was receiving welfare.

But what people don't realize is that man-in-the-house rules also were interpreted to disenfranchise black women who were single mothers.
In fact, in many cases did ya'll know Black mothers were DENIED support if they were deemed morally loose for NOT having a man in the house?

TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Starting in the 1940s, some states passed conduct- or morals-based eligibility policies such as so-called “man-in-the-house” or “suitable home” policies. States targeted the new laws at Black and unmarried mothers and their children. For example, in the first three months after Louisiana barred children from receiving ADC if their mothers were deemed “unsuitable” because of sexual activity outside marriage, 95 percent of the 6,000 children cut off were Black.

Having children out of wedlock could preclude you from receiving benefits as well.
Welfare expands in the 1960s | Soc 315 – Social Welfare

Several mechanisms were used to enforce blacks’ indentured servitude:

1. kicking people off of the welfare rolls during the growing season, when labor demands were high (and an organized workforce could bargain for better wages, conditions), meaning many had little choice but to work in the fields, even mothers with children at home
2. ‘residence laws’ (requiring people to live for a certain period of time before being eligible for assistance) were used to keep people from moving and collecting welfare in another location
3. benefits were adjusted to local labor markets (remember the principle that welfare should be less appealing than the lowest employment opportunities)–so, where were they higher, Alabama or Manhattan?
4. poor families with two parents were excluded from receiving AFDC until 1961 (using the ‘able-bodied’ argument)
5. black single mothers were discriminated against:
6. midnight raids and ‘man in the house’ rules (if caught with another man in the house, she would lose benefits)–totally unconstitutional, but standard practice in the South
7. ‘Good housekeeping’ ‘rules’ that allowed welfare workers to take a family off the rolls if they deemed a house to be ‘poorly maintained’ (and most houses have a few corners that could be used as exhibit A in a white glove test …)
8. well over 50% of black women and children were in the workforce–few if any safeguards on child labor existed for blacks (what about migrant workers today?)
9. ‘illegitimacy,’ birth out of wedlock, could cost a woman her assistance
10. blacks were often flat-out denied welfare benefits to which they were enitled
11. ‘work training’ was often required in low-wage sectors (menial jobs, such as dishwashing, housecleaning)
12. the ‘employable mother‘ rule required black women to work in the fields if there was work to be done and a labor shortage
13. unless they could show proof of employment, they could be denied other assistance–gues what type of employment was available??

The creation of Aid to Dependent Children (ADC, renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] in 1962) as part of the 1935 Social Security Act marked the beginning of the federal government’s ongoing role in providing cash assistance to children in poverty. But ADC and other New Deal relief and work programs excluded many Black and brown people.[36]

For example, policymakers originally designed unemployment insurance and retirement insurance primarily to support white male breadwinners.[37] Even though unemployment was extremely high among Black workers — up to 80 percent in some places as of 1932[38] — the new unemployment insurance programs explicitly excluded agricultural and domestic workers, the sectors where most Black women worked. Social Security’s retirement insurance excluded agricultural and domestic workers as well. As a result, 90 percent of Black women laborers were initially ineligible for these social insurance programs[39] and two-thirds of Black women workers were still ineligible a full decade later.[40]

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

Pt 2.

2.) Ya'll do realize that mass incarceration, military drafts and "going to the store for a cigarette" actually predates the era of food stamps and social welfare programs and these factors are FAAARRRR more responsible for destruction of black families than welfare programs that many black women didn't even benefit from as illustrated above and in the studies below?

Spoiler: More research ya'll

In fact, the myth of welfare leading to female-headed households was debunked as soon as it came out DECADES ago by several studies
Does Welfare Dependency Cause Female Headship? The Case of the Black Family on JSTOR

They literally found "gubment cheese and welfare benefits" as statistically insignificant as a factor for driving female-headed families. In fact, they found a decline in the supply of black males as a primary variable which makes sense because this coincides with several wars black men were drafted for AND War on Drugs and mass incarceration eras. So why do blacks keep parroting racist ideas about "black women replacing black men with food stamps"? Where do these narratives keep coming from?

Debunked once again in 1995
Does Welfare Play Any Role in Female Headship Decisions?

The results show that after controlling for individual effects, there is no evidence that welfare contributes to increasing propensities to form female headed households for either whites or blacks. Further, the results suggest that welfare-induced migration among blacks leads to an upward bias in the estimated welfare effect in previous studies.

AND AGAIN

]In his well-known article "The Coming White Underclass" and other writings Charles Murray has suggested that welfare is the primary cause of out-of-wedlock childbearing. He contends that welfare, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, and subsidized housing, should be eliminated. While Murray's views have gained a wide hearing, there is substantial evidence to suggest that welfare is not the primary cause of illegitimate births or teenage pregnancy. Contrary to popular impression, most out-of-wedlock births are not to teenagers. In fact, only 13% occur among women under age 18. Most researchers have found no connection, or only a small one, between AFDC benefits and childbearing decisions of young unmarried women. It must be noted that the rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing is a society-wide trend, not concentrated among the poor, and influenced by many factors beyond welfare. Since the early 1970s, welfare benefits have fallen in purchasing power, but the proportion of children born outside of marriage has continued to rise. It is conceded that the welfare system needs substantial reform, but its elimination would abandon many poor children and their families.

AND AGAIN

Racism as well as historical misrepresentation fueled the attack on AFDC. Most Southern states and many Northern ones had successfully excluded Blacks from New Deal jobs and postwar economic assistance programs. As the Civil Rights movement gained clout, this became harder to do and African-Americans, who had long been more likely than whites to experience poverty, now became highly visible on the welfare rolls.

As marriage rates fell and out-of-wedlock births rose, opponents of welfare promulgated a new myth. Unmarried poor women, they argued, were literally reproducing poverty, having babies in order to collect welfare checks. This despite the fact that a year before the repeal of AFDC, a rigorous state by state examination found “no” evidence that welfare was behind the increase in female-headed households. Other studies also refuted the claim that welfare caused the rise in unwed births.

In fact, other countries and American states with the most generous income assistance programs have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than the US states with the most miserly ones. Recent research shows that unwed births are largely driven by the dynamics of joblessness and inequality, along with the chaotic life situations produced by intense economic insecurity.

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

3.) Do ya'll also realize that black women are the least paid demongraphic in America earning only 61 cents to every 1 dollar white men make...in spite of having disproportionately high rates of education...and having one of the highest levels of work participation in the U.S?

Spoiler: Fukk dem studies

Education

Fast Facts: Degrees conferred by race and sex (72)


Despite Being the Most Educated, Black Women Earn Less Money at Work, in Entrepreneurship, and in Venture Capital. Here Are 3 Ways to Fix It

When you look at the data, the story for Black women in the workplace doesn't look good. Today marks Equal Pay Day for Black women, who earn 61 cents on the dollar compared with White men in the same job.

According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, at our current rate of progressBlack women won't receive full pay equity compared with White men until the year 2119. That's a hundred years from now. For purposes of comparison, White women will achieve pay equity with White men in the 2055.

Combine making less money for doing the same job with the many documented slights Black women encounter on a daily basis while working in corporate environments, and it isn't surprising to see that so many of them flee the world of employment to become their own boss.

But the story doesn't necessarily improve there. From 2007 to 2018, women-owned businesses grew by 58 percent. For Black women, that number nearly tripled, growing by 164 percent.

Even though Black women are flocking to entrepreneurship, their earnings there aren't measuring up in comparison. One report from ProjectDiane2018 showed that since 2009, Black-women-led startups have received only 0.0006 percent of the total tech venture funding raised. While the numbers are increasing, on average, firms owned by Black women raise $42,000. The average seed round for all startups is $1,140,000.


Black women are the most educated demographic in the U.S. when you look at the number of associate and bachelor degrees earned. But for a number of reasons, their education levels and the financial rewards they receive aren't aligning, particularly in the business world.

Ya'll do also realize that black women disproportionately take on the lion's share of care for both children AND elderly in our community in spite of their poor wages, right?

Caregiver Statistics: Demographics - Family Caregiver Alliance

• 65% of care recipients are female, with an average age of 69.4. The younger the care recipient, the more likely the recipient is to be male. 45% of recipients aged 18-45 are male, while 33% of recipients aged 50 or higher are male. [National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. (2015). Caregiving in the U.S.]
• Upwards of 75% of all caregivers are female, and may spend as much as 50% more time providing care than males. [Institute on Aging. (2016). Read How IOA Views Aging in America.]
• Male caregivers are less likely to provide personal care, but 24% helped a loved one get dressed compared to 28% of female caregivers. 16% of male caregivers help with bathing versus 30% of females. 40% of male caregivers use paid assistance for a loved one’s personal care. About 14.5 million caregivers are males out of the 43.4% who care for an older family member. [National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. (2009). Caregiving in the U.S.]

• Males may be sharing in caregiving tasks more than in the past, but females still shoulder the major burden of care. For example, while some studies show a relatively equitable distribution of caregiving between males and females, female caregivers spend more time providing care than males do (21.9 vs. 17.4 hours per week). [National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP. (2009). Caregiving in the U.S.]

• Hispanic (non-White, non-African-American) and African-American caregivers experience higher burdens from caregiving and spend more time caregiving on average than their White or Asian-American peers. The percentage of high burden caregivers caregiving time by racial/ethnic groups are as follows:
  • African-American: 57%, 30 hours per week
  • Hispanic (non-White, non-African-American): 45%, 30 hours per week
  • White: 33%, 20 hours per week
  • Asian-American: 30%, 16 hours per week [Alzheimer’s Association. (2015). 2015 Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures.]

4.) Next, why do people still believe the false idea that welfare damages families? Is it damaging major corporations?

Spoiler: Another study...sorry not sorry

In countries rich and poor alike, people alike worry that social programs for low-income households end up weakening work incentives and create an underclass of indigents. In fact, recent research suggests just the opposite: the longer families receive stable and predictable support, the better they and their children do. EPoD Director Rema Hanna explains her research in this article, first posted on Project Syndicate.

Dispelling the Myth of Welfare Dependency | Harvard Evidence for Policy Design

 

[⠝⠕⠏⠑]

Soooooo in light of all this information, NOW lets analyze the benefits of programs like these.

Given the stats on black women and the RESEARCHED POSITIVE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS (not what some incel says when they try to imply that "gubment checks create single moms" in a sad attempt to keep women poor in hopes it will facilitate a

situation that will magically somehow make chicks hop on their socially awkward dikks (don't lie, ya'll know EXACTLY the fukk I'm talking about), the reasoning is that if you positively raise the quality of life of the lowest on the totem pole (black women), everybody benefits. That's because women are a HUGE driving economic force and primary caretakers of both elderly AND children in spite of sexist ideas of women being useless or lazy in societies.

But...BUT...BUTTTTT.....

I actually don't necessarily agree with this tactic. Not because I don't agree with empowering disenfranchised black women or think they need the help. But because I don't think leaving men behind is practical.

(Here's where feminists will call me male-identified or a pick-me)
From a pragmatic perspective, its not like black men don't need assistance. Moreover, part of the reason why black women are in dire straights is BECAUSE of attacks on black male leadership.

Wealth for women in our fukked up society has traditionally come through male hands. While I enjoy the disruption of that nonsense because elevating one gender has never made practical sense (b/c if something happens to that one gender, you've weakened others and created liabilities just so men could shine and you're screwed), doing the same shyt for the opposite gender or women is just as stupid.

Here's a clever idea....why not focus on elevating BOTH? Why the fukk is that so difficult? Women need help but that shouldn't necessitate the abandonment of men. Because even as women begin to do better...unless they just gon suck on some p*ssy, they will STILL want and need competent male leaders and lovers...which they won't be able to find since we idiotically decided to skip leg day and focus on strengthening only one part of the body in our community.

I just have so much frustration surrounding these issues because time and time again, we KEEP GETTING IT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Soooo yeah. Um...let's reject incelish reject revolution lies about welfare rooted in desires to incentivize women to fukk them by keeping them in poverty.
But lets also stop ignoring men and then wondering why they are saying "fukk it" and withdrawing from society.
Can't we focus on developing leadership capabilities and financial stability in men AND women, as well as focusing on mental health of both genders? Wouldn't that lead to better families and communities?

No. Just me. Cool. I'll see myself out.
shyt like this makes me hate humanity sometimes. I give up.

 

[BaggerofTea]

You worded it better than be Books

That whole welfare propaganda schtick that @TryObsidian? is some white supremacist propaganda right out of the Reagan/Rockwell/Duke era

I have so many feelings inside about this. But once again, misrepresentations and lies about black women strike again. Its hard to have conversations about shyt like this because so many people BELIEVE so many damn lies about social welfare programs and black women that I have to clear out all the bullshyt before we can even have a cogent fukking conversation about the shyt.

So many questions.
This is Pt 1.

1.) First off, why do people think Welfare pushed black men out of the homes and buy into racist theories about "gubment handouts" and "welfare queens"?

Spoiler: Research! Grrrrr

Yes, there were "man-in-the-house" raids when welfare first started and they didn't allow two-headed families to participate. This is where they would literally unconstitutionally kick down the doors of black family homes to determine if a man was living there if a woman was receiving welfare.

But what people don't realize is that man-in-the-house rules also were interpreted to disenfranchise black women who were single mothers.
In fact, in many cases did ya'll know Black mothers were DENIED support if they were deemed morally loose for NOT having a man in the house?

TANF Policies Reflect Racist Legacy of Cash Assistance | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Having children out of wedlock could preclude you from receiving benefits as well.
Welfare expands in the 1960s | Soc 315 – Social Welfare