Haha, that's right. I remember meeting him when I was in Austin for school back in the late 2000s. Seemed like a normal guy.
How do "deceased, absent, or unable to work" equate to "out of wedlock"? I see nothing in those three words that means "out of wedlock". A widow, by definition, was married. "Unable to work" has no bearing on marital status. I can understand "absent", although I think that characterization removes agency from men who decided to abandon their families and places the blame for men's bad choices onto women, but it also doesn't necessarily mean "unmarried". There are countless deadbeat dads throughout history. The law was also written in the 1960s when it was very, very hard for women to have jobs of their own. What were women with dead or infirm husbands to do if they had children?
"Congress appropriated $650 million in the 2024 fiscal year to fund a program that helps state and local governments house migrants — and instructed US Customs and Border Protection to transfer that $650 million to FEMA to administer the program. But this $650 million pot is entirely distinct from FEMA’s pot of disaster relief funds; as the Department of Homeland Security, the White House and independent observers noted this week, they’re just two separate things funded separately by Congress. Congress appropriated more than $35 billion in disaster relief funds for fiscal 2024, according to official FEMA statistics."
By electing a President that has been married three times - has three different "baby mama's", that has paid women to have abortions and raw dogs prostitutes while his wife's womb is recuperating from having a son. ThAt Is HoW yOu PrOmOtE FaMiLY NuCleAR VALUEzzzz.
That is different than paying them to have children out of wedlock. That is giving financial assistance when that happened. That financial assistance in now way made it profitable or surpassed the expenses involved in having children out of wedlock. It did provide better help for the children and more resources for them. It reduced the financial burden on those single parent families.
And, shockingly, was intended to help the children in these situations instead of punishing them for what happened to their parents.
Trump's children are all incredibly impressive. He has done a great job mentoring and shaping them into very strong, accomplished people. Biden's son Hunter is one of the worst humans alive based on how he treats women (and drugs) and repeatedly sold access to our government in exchange for cash. Kamala and Doug's daughter is a freak show and Doug Emhoff slaps women and is generally a low T sissy boy. Choose wisely
Donald Trump has three baby mamas. He has expressed an interest in having sex with his oldest daughter. His younger daughter is very good friends with Lindsay Lohan and she is married to a Middle Easterner - which I am sure father isn't happy about. There is nothing impressive about Donald Trump Jr. - he has never had a real job outside of being a bartender for awhile and living in his truck. He is divorced from his wife and is dating an absolute train wreck of a person now. Eric Trump has never had a real job either - but he did at least sign the hush payment checks to Michael Cohen paying of pops raw dogging a paid w****. At least Eric has managed to not get divorced or have a string of gross relationships like his brother or father. As for Ivanka, I mostly feel bad for her - having her father trying to constantly molest her. It is obvious God isn't important to her, when her fiancée broke up with her because her parents didn't like her being Christian - she had no problem becoming Jewish. Barron Trump is just getting started - but torturing animals and slapping nannies isn't a good start. Hopefully he will be able to get a real job and rely on nepotism like most of his half siblings. As for Tiffany and Barron - they almost never see or saw their father, so there is some hope there.
The AFDC was originally created in 1935, but the scope of welfare entitlements did not include black women. Then, in the 60's, as part of the Great Society, the civil rights movement and the efforts of the National Welfare Rights Organization, the scope of welfare entitlements was expanded to include black women. As a result, the quantity of single mothers in the US increased dramatically, as they could claim the AFDC financial benefits while married mothers could not. The AFDC program tended to treat households with a cohabiting male who was not the natural father of the children much more leniently than those with a resident spouse or father of the children. This feature created a clear disincentive for marriage and also a clear incentive for divorce, because women who married faced the reduction or loss of their AFDC benefits. Although the intent of the program may have been to provide financial assistance to single mothers, it financially incentivized women to bear children without being married. By 1996, the program's spending was $24 billion per year. When adjusted for inflation, the highest spending was in 1976, which exceeded 1996 spending by about 8%. Although the AFDC ended in 1997, its negative impacts on the nuclear family were were deeply felt and are lasting to this day. That's how the US government incentivized broken homes, Charlie Brown.
Appreciate the straightforward answer. And I agree that those things make it comparably more possible to split a household. But, the implication of what you're saying is that these households that have split should have been forced to remain united through legal and economic subjugation. Your pitch, then, is that black communities are best off if those without job skills are denied any help for food and shelter, that children in poverty obviously through no fault of their own are likewise denied; that spouses who no longer get along are forced to remain in their marriage contracts, and that people who may have sacrificed their own earning potential to support a spouse should get no compensation for their sacrifices in a divorce. That way, they are forced to stay in their family units for their own survival. United households are a proxy measure for a healthy society. But, it is just a proxy and if they're united only because of legal or economic pressure, that isn't any healthier than a household split for a welfare benefit. For a healthy society, lets first make sure everybody eats. Everybody gets a roof, an education, and meaningful work. Then we worry about family units. Sure, family units make those basics easier to attain, but those basics also make family units easier to maintain -- its a virtuous cycle.
We all know that Kamala's brown skin is what is bothering most of the people on the right, they are all just racists. They aren't even hiding it anymore....even in this thread. DD
the Russian bot CircleTheDrain had been programmed to be willfully ignorant Attorney General Kamala Harris leads Wells Fargo criminal probe Harris went toe-to-toe with Jamie Dimon over a settlement for California homeowners. The big banks offered $4 billion—they settled at $20 billion 's $20 billion settlement for Calif homeowners makes other state AGs look like dumb asses In September 2011, Harris pulled California out of the nationwide mortgage settlement talks after a coalition of state attorneys general and federal agencies spent nearly a year trying to hammer out a deal with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers: Wells Fargo was accused of using illicit tactics to wrongfully foreclose on homeowners. Harris made the decision to pull out of the talks after she met personally with representatives from the banks, saying that the deal they were offering would have provided just $2 billion to $4 billion to California. Harris has dismissed the deal as “crumbs on the table.” When the nationwide mortgage settlement was reached more than four months later, California had secured separate commitments from the three biggest mortgage servicers— B of A., Wells Fargo. and JPMorgan Chase & Co----close to $25 billion
