Black democrat wants $100B taxpayer money given to blacks

[Miradus]

Kamoola "Head Board" Harris is a 2 star General in the Free Sh*t Army. It's only natural to want to pay off your soldiers.

Agreed.

She's the vilest sort of panderer. When she had power ... she was oppressive. She has a track record for being authoritarian, using cops as foot soldiers for her violent schemes, and being corrupt.

There is literally no one else on the Democratic stage I want to see gain power LESS. She is the largest threat, regardless of her standing in the polls.

I'd gladly embrace a President Bernie Sanders, for I know his collectivist schemes would go nowhere, over a President Harris.

[The Cub]

Mugwump,

My response is on bold type.

The appeal to "tort law" is a dumb and self-serving analysis. Far from it. My position as stated is based upon fact and 2,500 years of equitable law, while yours is based purely upon emotion. It's not about your personal guilt, it's about collective responsibility. While slavery of any human is terrible and I would never condone it, I NEVER PARTICIPATED in it. Thus, I am neither responsible nor liable. (Not to mention, while you and your oh-so-virtuous ancestors may not have owned slaves or slaughtered any Indians, you benefit from that having been done by somebody else.) “oh-so-virtuous” Why was that necessary? I never made any such comment or implication.

And how have I benefited from either group? No slaves picked cotton for me or my family. Nor have any Indians provided Buffalo meat for us.

I have benefited from many things, indirectly. Am I also responsible to Edison’s family for the light bulb? And to the Fermi and Pasteur families? Do I owe the families of people killed while working on Hoover Dam? How about the families of the people that paved the highways near my home? Shall I pay them all royalties?

And what of the Veterans? Why aren’t you calling for reparations to them? If anyone is owed would it not be them?

The idea behind Kamala Harris's proposal is that the US has a group of citizens that suffers economic disadvantage now because of systematic screwing over in the past. (And note it's not about blacks having been slaves, but about the government deliberately excluding them from programs that benefited millions of other people who happened not so incidentally to be white.) So it's about society as a whole making that right. Society as a whole never owned any slaves, nor is indebted to sons of sons of sons of sons of slaves who were never slaves.

Is today’s Society as a whole responsible to make all historical wrongs right? Even centuries later when neither the aggrieved parties nor the perpetrators continue to live? My family was not even present on this continent at the time of slavery. If you want ‘society’ to pay…then tell the Democrats, the party of slavery and segregation, to pay.

“Group of citizens who suffers economic disadvantage”? When legal immigrants came over here at the turn of the 20^th century and before, did they arrive to Affirmative Action? Or to Food Stamps? Or to Welfare? Or to Public Housing at discount rates? Was there an EEOC to look after them?

No, they worked hard against all odds and in spite of hatred of other parties. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Family members helped fellow family members. Neighbors (often of the same ethnicity) helped each other. They built businesses; worked 2 jobs. Saved and invested.

I don’t read where you are concerned about the babies torn apart limb by limb without anesthesia in the womb. Why not? Is not their plight as bad as sons of sons of sons of sons of slaves? From purely a secular point of view (vs. spiritual) why isn’t Society as a whole responsible for paying reparations to any related aggrieved parties?

If you could actually demonstrate that you even had any ancestors who were fed to the lions or burnt at the stake you don’t know anything about my family.--since it's far more likely they were in the stands rooting for the big cats or toasting marshmallows while the heretics' skin crackled away from their flesh You might want to consult historical truths. I was referring to my ancestors, Catholics who were crucified, burned at the stake and fed to the lions by the Romans….the perpetrators that I was referring to.--you would still need to make a case that there's a traceable causal relationship between that and your current sorry state, and that sir, is part of my point. Made in previous posts. and that there were lots of others just like you in the same boat. So, it only counts if ‘lots of people’ are involved? How about 300 years of crucifixions, burnings at the stake and feedings to lions? That does not qualify for lots of people? If you could do that, and if you could identify the still-extant society that perpetrated the wrong, No, I can not. Why? because they are all dead, just as the American slave owners are all dead. Once again, you prove another of my points. then I'd say you would be totally within your rights to appeal to the conscience of that society to do something for you. That would of course require that the society and its collective citizenry had some kind of conscience. I do not know you, but I am curious. How have you acted upon “conscience”, and the murder of babies within the womb?

Does man know when a fetus obtains a soul? Is it appropriate for him to guess, so as to “benefit society with fewer mouths to feed”, as your side believes? And what of fathers and other family members who object to the killing of their children? Are they not aggrieved parties?

As far as cheap emotionalism goes, right-wingers are about the cheapest of the cheap there, and thus have no room to talk. All those poor little unborn babies, the terrible mistreatment of people who are forced-FORCED!--to recognize same-sex marriage and treat black people as if they are equals, and so on and on and on. Now, its same sex marriage….Same sex marriage is a mythical abomination. Marriage exists between a man and woman, only. And if right-wingers don't wave their tin cups it's because their recent ancestors, or advocates for them, did so instead, and now they've got programs in place to help prop them up.

How much did you donate DIRECTLY to any Black Family last year?

[Mugwump]

Far from it. My position as stated is based upon fact and 2,500 years of equitable law, while yours is based purely upon emotion. It's not about your personal guilt, it's about collective responsibility. While slavery of any human is terrible and I would never condone it, I NEVER PARTICIPATED in it. Thus, I am neither responsible nor liable.

Wrong. This isn't about you personally. It's about you as a member of society, and your share in the collective responsibility. Perhaps you think there's no such thing, but that's one of those libertarian delusions people use to excuse their own greed and callousness.

And how have I benefited from either group? No slaves picked cotton for me or my family. Nor have any Indians provided Buffalo meat for us.

These are childish willfully ignorant objections. A significant piece of the accumulated capital owned in the US, which is what makes us a wealthy country, was derived from slave labor. And I think it's probably fair to say that it's only because people who got here before your ancestors exterminated the Indians that there was a place for your folks to live, and they didn't have to kill any redskins themselves. Unless you're a Native AMerican, We all benefit from that, just as we benefit from all the accumulated work that was done before us, free or slave.

I have benefited from many things, indirectly. Am I also responsible to Edison’s family for the light bulb? And to the Fermi and Pasteur families? Do I owe the families of people killed while working on Hoover Dam? How about the families of the people that paved the highways near my home? Shall I pay them all royalties?

Edison's family, and those of those other guys, did just fine out of the deal, Edison in particular. Copyright and patent law made him damned rich. In the case of the Hoover Dam workers, it was done in the depths of the Depression and the guys working on it were thrilled to have the work. The guys killed while working on it probably got insurance, (though terribly inadequate, and most critically, they were paid for their work, and knew the risks. Same for those who paved the highways. All of the people you mention signed up for their jobs. And in the case of the scientists, they were doing it for love of the work and for the advancement of knowledge, and they were grateful for the opportunity they had to do it. This is not the same for black slaves, or for Native Americans.


It's true that we in some sense "owe" our ancestors, just as we owe Shakespeare and Shelley and Beethoven. But that cultural and intellectual inheritance is something we get for free, even though we didn't earn it. And we should probably stay aware of that when we consider our own obligations to others and to people of the future. We should act less like we get to consume and use up everything, and instead be mindful of what we received from those who went before us, and think of ourselves as custodians of the earth and its goods for the ones who come after us.

And what of the Veterans? Why aren’t you calling for reparations to them? If anyone is owed would it not be them?

You sort of need to divide veterans into different groups. The guys in WW1 and WW2 were largely citizen soldiers, many of them draftees, who dropped their real lives to go off and defend the country against threat. They were discharging an obligation to society as a whole. And when they got back, the government recognized that there was a collective responsibility to them in return, and instituted a whole raft of programs to benefit them, including the various programs to assist with buying homes that were denied to the black soldiers--hence Kamala Harris's proposal.


Those programs stayed even after the draft was gone, and now educational benefits and various other goodies, not to mention extremely generous retirement plans, are just part of the compensation given to the professional military class, who signed up for the job knowing the risks, such as they are. And when you talk about groups being overly entitled, veterans are about the worst offenders. You can't turn around without some ex-military guy who hasn't had to work since the age of 45 whining about how unfair it is that he might be asked to start paying something for his family's health insurance, and on and on. The way some veterans natter on about how underappreciated they are, you'd think they won the damn Revolutionary War by themselves, rather than being a cog in a vast and ruthless imperial military wheel. In general, veterans do fine.

today’s Society as a whole responsible to make all historical wrongs right? Even centuries later when neither the aggrieved parties nor the perpetrators continue to live? My family was not even present on this continent at the time of slavery. If you want ‘society’ to pay…then tell the Democrats, the party of slavery and segregation, to pay.

Please don't bore me further with appeals to your innocent ancestors. As I say, it's not the point.

As far as dragging out the Democrats as the party of slavery and segregations, that's true of Democrats at the time, but the identity and policies of the parties has switched since then, and once the Democrats adopted a platform of civil rights, all the white racists went fleeing to the Republican party, where they still are. What's more true is to say that "white southerners" were the primary perpetrators of slavery and segregation. (And lots of them still look back on those days with fondness and deeply resent the idea of racial equality.) So if we're going to single out a subgroup of the population to hold responsible for making it up to black people, white southerners should be the ones. I happen to think that the nation as a whole was complicit not only in slavery but in the disgraceful Jim Crow era that only ended 50 years ago, so that we all share the responsibility.

“Group of citizens who suffers economic disadvantage”? When legal immigrants came over here at the turn of the 20th century and before, did they arrive to Affirmative Action? Or to Food Stamps? Or to Welfare? Or to Public Housing at discount rates? Was there an EEOC to look after them?


No, they worked hard against all odds and in spite of hatred of other parties. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps. Family members helped fellow family members. Neighbors (often of the same ethnicity) helped each other. They built businesses; worked 2 jobs. Saved and invested.

This is dumb and irrelevant to the argument. It's really yet another right-wing resentful implicitly racist rant about colored people who are only have problems because of their own immoral lazy fault, and now they want something for nothing from all us hard-working innocent mistreated white people, and we shouldn't have to pay for their bad behavior, blah blah blah.

I don’t read where you are concerned about the babies torn apart limb by limb without anesthesia in the womb. Why not?

Because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For the same reason, I also didn't mention Nazi concentration camps or pedophiles or Brexit or the incredible stupidity and corruption of Donald Trump.

You might want to consult historical truths. I was referring to my ancestors, Catholics who were crucified, burned at the stake and fed to the lions by the Romans….the perpetrators that I was referring to.--

I know as much about your own separate 2nd and 3rd Century ancestors as you do--which is to say, nothing. (And as for history, it's apparent that I know a whole lot more than you do.) As I say, probability tells us that 90+% of your Italian ancestors at the time were in the 90+% of the pagan population of the empire who converted once Constantine made Christianity the official religion. In fact, considering how many generations have passed and how many ancestors you have from that time, chances are good that at least some of your forebears were the Roman officials who carried out the persecutions against the Christians.

...and that sir, is part of my point. Made in previous posts. and that there were lots of others just like you in the same boat. So, it only counts if ‘lots of people’ are involved? How about 300 years of crucifixions, burnings at the stake and feedings to lions? That does not qualify for lots of people?

This is the sort of stuff that junior high kids get into, when they fantasize about their past life from a thousand years ago. In the stories they tell themselves, they were a princess or a great warrior or a wizard or some other wonderful personage. If there were such a thing as past lives that one could revisit, the vast majority of them prior to the last few hundred years would be miserable poor uneventful lives of grinding boring poverty, a bowl of rice a day, and dying before the age of 10 of some disease that is now easily curable. In your version of this fantasy, your ancestors were all faithful martyred Christians holding fast to the faith against a heathen hellbound empire, just like we see in the movies. As with what the Ouija board might have told you yesterday, it's unworthy of a serious grownup conversation.

I...No, I can not. Why? because they are all dead, just as the American slave owners are all dead. Once again, you prove another of my points.

The slave owners may be dead, but American society has been continuous since then, and among us live people who continue to suffer the consequences of their ancestors having been enslaved. More to the point for Kamala Harris's proposal, there were wrongs perpetrated by law on black people as a group over the last 50-80 years, the consequences of which still affect their recent descendants, or even on the people themselves. So it would be appropriate for US society to do something to make it right.

I do not know you, but I am curious. How have you acted upon “conscience”, and the murder of babies within the womb? Does man know when a fetus obtains a soul? Is it appropriate for him to guess, so as to “benefit society with fewer mouths to feed”, as your side believes? And what of fathers and other family members who object to the killing of their children? Are they not aggrieved parties?

It's not the topic here. If you want to start a separate discussion about abortion, knock yourself out. I'll be glad to play!


I note that abortion is about the only moral topic of interest to right-wingers, other than how awful it is that they have to put up with gays. The day you guys express any concern for the well-being of any post-natal humans will be a glad day. Children in cages? Hey, no problem, their parents shouldn't have brought them here. Bombing innocent villagers in foreign countries? Sorry, bad stuff happens., it's just collateral damage, nothing personal or even deliberate. And we wouldn't have had to do that if those dumb villagers hadn't let in the Taliban or ISIS.
[
QUOTE=The Cub;2772809]Same sex marriage is a mythical abomination. Marriage exists between a man and woman, only.[/quote]


Feel free to take up that conversation with Jesus next time the two of you have a talk. Ask him if it's really all that important to him in comparison with the other stuff he talked about. Though come to think of it, Jesus is never recorded as having said anything whatsoever about homosexuality. He did, however, say a lot about helping the poor and unfortunate and powerless, but that doesn't seem to get any play with current-day conservative "Christians."

How much did you donate DIRECTLY to any Black Family last year?

Again, this is one of those things that's a collective obligation of society as a whole. I'm glad to kick in my share via taxes, which is how it ought to be done. This is another one of those things that right-wingers always vomit up in any conversation about any social program: "Well, if you think it's so important then you spend your OWN money on it! Don't ask ME or the rest of us to do it."


When it's sincere, this argument shows a deep misunderstanding or denial of the existence of collective responsibility toward others in society. But mostly it's a dishonest way to attack somebody, because the same people who sneer at paying taxes to help out poor people as if it's not a collective responsibility would never accept the same response to suggestions that we ought to spend more money to, say, build a border wall, or any other way of spending government money that they themselves favor. "Hey how many feet of the border wall did you yourself build last year?"

[Miradus]

Again, this is one of those things that's a collective obligation of society as a whole.

No. Just no.

There is no such thing as a collective obligation of society, beyond a very limited "do no harm".

Aside from that, the mere concept of reparations 150 years past the event is absurd. It's in no way feasible whatsoever to sort out who has or hasn't benefited or suffered. "Oh, you're black? Here's some money."

How black do you have to be? I'm ethnically about the same level of "Negro" as Obama was, had his daddy been who his momma claimed his daddy was. What share of your white money do I get? Considering I didn't even discover I was even partially black until I was around forty years old.

Do I get money for all the different parts of me that have suffered "oppression"? Are we going to have genetic testing to see who qualifies? Here's x percent for your Negro blood, x percent for your Irish, and oh lucky you .. got some Cherokee in there too so here's another x percent.

It's a ridiculous concept. Your personal willingness to chip in your share is moot. You are already free to go donate some of your money to the United Negro College Fund or to toss it in the yard of your nearest black neighbor if you believe you have some sort of collective guilt to rid yourself of. You have ZERO claim on my money or anyone else's.

[Mugwump]

No. Just no.

There is no such thing as a collective obligation of society, beyond a very limited "do no harm".

Of course there is. Libertarians have an irresponsible fantasy that everything is or ought to be some kind of voluntary contract, but no society works according to that principle, or ever has, or ever will. Easy examples: If a major hurricane devastates New Orleans or Miami, is there a collective obligation on the part of the rest of the country to aid the survivors and rebuild? Absolutely. If some part of the population is unable to afford food to feed themselves and their families, is there a collective obligation of society to help? Sure. No sensible person disputes any of that.

Aside from that, the mere concept of reparations 150 years past the event is absurd. It's in no way feasible whatsoever to sort out who has or hasn't benefited or suffered. "Oh, you're black? Here's some money."

I think the argument is a little more sophisticated than that, but that's not what Kamala Harris is proposing. She's talking about wrongs that occurred since WW2. If you don't think those are legitimate, then do you also think it's not legitimate for people to still be tracking down art and other valuables stolen by the Nazis and trying to restore it to the families of those from whom is was stolen? After all, that was even earlier.

Do I get money for all the different parts of me that have suffered "oppression"?

As with the other guy, these arguments and objections seem almost deliberately dumb and naive. The underlying idea really isn't all that hard: if some subgroup within society is in a bad spot as a result of past injustices visited on that group in the past by society/the government as a whole, then society owes it to the group to make it right in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean a cash payout to all individuals.

It's a ridiculous concept. Your personal willingness to chip in your share is moot. You are already free to go donate some of your money to the United Negro College Fund or to toss it in the yard of your nearest black neighbor if you believe you have some sort of collective guilt to rid yourself of. You have ZERO claim on my money or anyone else's.

It's not ridiculous. It's perfectly sensible. In the 18th and 19th centuries we--no, not you or me or the Cub, but the US--slaughtered the Indians and took all their land and herded them onto reservations and destroyed their way of life. Now we (again, US society as a whole) owe something to their descendants who are still living with the aftermath of all that. A lot of people, most people, I would say, don't have a problem with such an idea, but many of the same folks get really twisted when it comes to applying the same reasoning to black people. Seems like plain old racism to me, but I suppose there are other possible explanations.

I think I already replied to the "If you feel bad about it, pay for it yourself and leave me alone" response above. It's dumb at best, dishonest at worst. "You've got no claim on MY money!" That's stupid. It's not about my claim on your money, it's about whether there's a legitimate claim by an aggrieved group on society as a whole. You might not think there is, but if not, then argue on that basis. Don't try to cast the issue as if it's about me or some evil liberals wanting your money or wanting to oppress you or any of that libertarian horse manure. Any government initiative you guys don't like always gets depicted as if the whole point is to deliberately oppress you personally. Get a grip. It's not about you. Argue the case on its merits, not on what you imagine are the evil motivations of people you disagree with.

And for the same reason, I weary of those defensive "you feel guilty and you want me to feel guilty, too, but I don't!" lines. I don't feel personally guilty about slavery or Jim Crow having happened in the past, or about the Indians being mostly exterminated. I do feel that there's a wider social responsibility to redress wrongs and lift up people in society who are less fortunate.

[Davy Crockett]

I do feel that there's a wider social responsibility to redress wrongs and lift up people in society who are less fortunate.

You MIGHT have a legitimate point IF you were addressing a recent mass wrong done by society.
Following your line of thought, one could go back to the days after the Great Flood and have to compensate for some wrong committed.

While no reasonable person will disagree that egregious wrongs have been committed in the distant past, reparations will not erase them.

If we are going to hold someone responsible for slavery, we should go back to the Africans and Muslims who did the original enslavement and sold these people into slavery.
As far as lifting people up, we've been paying to lift people up since, at least, the beginnings of the Great Society's "War on Poverty"

[jmthomas]

Of course there is. Libertarians have an irresponsible fantasy that everything is or ought to be some kind of voluntary contract, but no society works according to that principle, or ever has, or ever will. Easy examples: If a major hurricane devastates New Orleans or Miami, is there a collective obligation on the part of the rest of the country to aid the survivors and rebuild? Absolutely. If some part of the population is unable to afford food to feed themselves and their families, is there a collective obligation of society to help? Sure. No sensible person disputes any of that.



I think the argument is a little more sophisticated than that, but that's not what Kamala Harris is proposing. She's talking about wrongs that occurred since WW2. If you don't think those are legitimate, then do you also think it's not legitimate for people to still be tracking down art and other valuables stolen by the Nazis and trying to restore it to the families of those from whom is was stolen? After all, that was even earlier.



As with the other guy, these arguments and objections seem almost deliberately dumb and naive. The underlying idea really isn't all that hard: if some subgroup within society is in a bad spot as a result of past injustices visited on that group in the past by society/the government as a whole, then society owes it to the group to make it right in some way. This doesn't necessarily mean a cash payout to all individuals.



It's not ridiculous. It's perfectly sensible. In the 18th and 19th centuries we--no, not you or me or the Cub, but the US--slaughtered the Indians and took all their land and herded them onto reservations and destroyed their way of life. Now we (again, US society as a whole) owe something to their descendants who are still living with the aftermath of all that. A lot of people, most people, I would say, don't have a problem with such an idea, but many of the same folks get really twisted when it comes to applying the same reasoning to black people. Seems like plain old racism to me, but I suppose there are other possible explanations.

I think I already replied to the "If you feel bad about it, pay for it yourself and leave me alone" response above. It's dumb at best, dishonest at worst. "You've got no claim on MY money!" That's stupid. It's not about my claim on your money, it's about whether there's a legitimate claim by an aggrieved group on society as a whole. You might not think there is, but if not, then argue on that basis. Don't try to cast the issue as if it's about me or some evil liberals wanting your money or wanting to oppress you or any of that libertarian horse manure. Any government initiative you guys don't like always gets depicted as if the whole point is to deliberately oppress you personally. Get a grip. It's not about you. Argue the case on its merits, not on what you imagine are the evil motivations of people you disagree with.

And for the same reason, I weary of those defensive "you feel guilty and you want me to feel guilty, too, but I don't!" lines. I don't feel personally guilty about slavery or Jim Crow having happened in the past, or about the Indians being mostly exterminated. I do feel that there's a wider social responsibility to redress wrongs and lift up people in society who are less fortunate.

To be quite honest, after reading this entire thread, and all the responses, I am going to simply put this out here:

Your "feelings" on this entire subject are yours, and yours alone. They mean absolutely jack squat to me as they have no bearing on my life direction. You want to try and emotionally extort money from people as some salve for your "feelings". I find it disgusting.

Blatant extortion at gun point can quickly make very hostile enemies of people.

[Achilles]

[Mugwump]

You MIGHT have a legitimate point IF you were addressing a recent mass wrong done by society.
Following your line of thought, one could go back to the days after the Great Flood and have to compensate for some wrong committed.

While no reasonable person will disagree that egregious wrongs have been committed in the distant past, reparations will not erase them.

If we are going to hold someone responsible for slavery, we should go back to the Africans and Muslims who did the original enslavement and sold these people into slavery.
As far as lifting people up, we've been paying to lift people up since, at least, the beginnings of the Great Society's "War on Poverty"

Have you even read any of the above, or what Kamala Harris is talking about? You guys are so fixated on "no reparations for slavery" that you're unable even to hear it when the redress is about something else, and something more recent.

[jmthomas]

Have you even read any of the above, or what Kamala Harris is talking about? You guys are so fixated on "no reparations for slavery" that you're unable even to hear it when the redress is about something else, and something more recent.

Ok, so when does it end? This generation? 5 generations on? Or does it go on forever? When is enough enough? Till all their little "feelings" are assuaged?

No, and not just no, but hell no! Not one damn dime.

You want to improve your lot in life? Work for it like everyone else has to. The opportunity is there if you want it. If you don't have the drive to work for it, you have no right to claim it from someone else who did work for it.

Sorry everyone for the rant, but this subject just burns me to no end. My father was Army, back during the whole "Eisenhower Integration" boondoggle. He worked in a high tech field, running the 8-man platoon for several months after the platoon Sergeant transferred. My father was a Spec 4 (Corporal). He got passed over for promotion for one reason. They brought in a motor pool Sergeant in to run the platoon. He had 25 years in, and was still just an E-5. Had no technical training in this MOS at all. Couldn't even run the motor pool properly.

My father was short timer by then, like two months left. He got approached by the retention officer about going for E-5. Only problem was Dad wouldn't stay with his platoon. Told Dad he would only make E-5 if he went to a little country called Vietnam as an "advisor". This was back in late 1961 or early 62.

When Dad asked why he couldn't stay with his platoon in his MOS, he was told integration" was a priority, and the motor pool Sargent was his replacement, which they expected Dad to train before he left Germany. He said nope, and when told he had to, Dad said "what is in my head is mine", no one elses. I worked for it and studied for it"

That is where I am coming from. You work you benefit. You don't work, you deserve exactly what you worked, zero.