HR 40: Reparations for African-Americans

[manifold]

Reparations for African-Americans
Bill # H.R.40

Is that short for House Resolution 40 acres and a mule, or is that just a coincidence?

 

[manifold]

I would only support reparations for those African Americans that can properly spell and pronounce the word reparations. That should limit the costs dramatically.


j/k.

 

[Cecilie1200]

o be careful what you say there missourian....there was some study...approximately 100,000 or so "slaves" being held in the us....interestingly most of them are being held by other immigrants..what were they called in history indentured servants and like those in history are being abused...

as for the black thing....approximately 40% of todays black americans are descented from blacks who freely came here...how are you going to tell the difference? at times i think this might be a good idea..with the agreement that that is the last dime blacks will get from taxpayers...no more welfare queens (well at least black ones) no more aid from social programs...a one time payment and its done....but that aint gonna happen.

And what do you do with the people like my nephew and grandson, who are half-black and half-white? Do they pay reparations to themselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reparations are a terrible ideas since they confer guilt on a group of people which had nothing to do with the crimes.

A government can be just only in its time.

They also confer victimhood on a group of people which had nothing to do with the crimes, when you get right down to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Reparations are a terrible ideas since they confer guilt on a group of people which had nothing to do with the crimes.

A government can be just only in its time.

The only thing you are guilty of is living in a society that used to treat blacks like second class citizens.

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Think of all the whites in South Africa complaining that they are not responsible for Aparthide. Technically they are correct. So are you. That doesn't mean reparations aren't necessary or justified.

So what do you think would be fair? $1000 per person? $10,000 per person? $100,000 per person? $1,000,000 per person?

BTW, if any reparations are given, I am pretty close to certain, you would see race relations set back about fifty years.

You realize that no one advocating reparations has any intention of the money going to actual individuals, right? Their plan is to have the money paid into groups to "heighten awareness" and "promote African-American concerns".

 

[Yurt]

do black africans have to contribute to this pot...they are the ones who sold them...

 

[Burp]

o be careful what you say there missourian....there was some study...approximately 100,000 or so "slaves" being held in the us....interestingly most of them are being held by other immigrants..what were they called in history indentured servants and like those in history are being abused...

as for the black thing....approximately 40% of todays black americans are descented from blacks who freely came here...how are you going to tell the difference? at times i think this might be a good idea..with the agreement that that is the last dime blacks will get from taxpayers...no more welfare queens (well at least black ones) no more aid from social programs...a one time payment and its done....but that aint gonna happen.

And what do you do with the people like my nephew and grandson, who are half-black and half-white? Do they pay reparations to themselves?

Good question for Obama.

 

[Burp]

do black africans have to contribute to this pot...they are the ones who sold them...

Oh geez...now you have done it. Bass and 52nd are going to jump on this thread and start throwing around crap about white racist history and how we whites always blame someone else.

Thanks.

 

[Godboy]

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

Explain to me how some gangster in the hood deserves money just because some black guy hundreds of years ago was mistreated? How do you think that slave that was getting whipped would feel if he found out that some slimeball in the future is getting money for his blood?

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

My ancestors immigrated here at the turn of the century, just like the majority of white peoples ancestors. How are we guilty of anything?

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Why are black people exluded from this same judgement? Do they not discriminate too?

 

[DamnYankee]

I am in favor of Congress giving reparations...to anyone who is legally a slave on or after the day the bill passes or any living person who was a slave in the United States before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Bold type was added for clarity

So are you for a 100% estate tax? Doesn't seem to me like you want anyone's descendants to have any of their wealth.

That makes no sense. What wealth did slaves have?

 

[DamnYankee]

Reparations are a terrible ideas since they confer guilt on a group of people which had nothing to do with the crimes.

A government can be just only in its time.

The only thing you are guilty of is living in a society that used to treat blacks like second class citizens.

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Think of all the whites in South Africa complaining that they are not responsible for Aparthide. Technically they are correct. So are you. That doesn't mean reparations aren't necessary or justified.

Hmmm.... Apartheid ended approx. 15 years ago and slavery in America ended well over 150 years ago. Considerable difference, wouldn't you say? Not to mention, Affirmative Action could very well be considered reparations, and, in that case, the debt has been paid in full.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

My ancestors immigrated here at the turn of the century, just like the majority of white peoples ancestors. How are we guilty of anything?

What frigging difference does it make what my ancestors were guilty of, anyway? If my great-grandfather was a bank robber, are you going to send ME to prison for it? How do I carry the legal and moral (not to mention financial) weight of actions taken by someone I never met at a time when I didn't exist?

 

[tigerbob]

Congressional Legislation

Reparations for African-Americans
Bill # H.R.40

Original Sponsor:
John Conyers (D-MI 14th)

Cosponsor Total: 5
(last sponsor added 03/12/2009)
5 Democrats


About This Legislation:

1/6/2009--Introduced. Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act - Establishes the Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans to examine slavery and discrimination in the colonies and the United States from 1619 to the present and recommend appropriate remedies.

Congress.org - Current Legislation

Conyers again. He and his wife are truly Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber.

 

[xotoxi]

Don't forget about the Native Americans!

 

[William Joyce]

The only thing you are guilty of is living in a society that used to treat blacks like second class citizens.

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Think of all the whites in South Africa complaining that they are not responsible for Aparthide. Technically they are correct. So are you. That doesn't mean reparations aren't necessary or justified.

So, with this line of reasoning, you

1) affirm the existence of race as a real and legally determinable human quality
2) affirm the moral acceptability of collective racial group guilt

Which is funny, because I thought liberals

1) denied race had any scientific validity and
2) abhorred blaming entire racial groups for the activities of some members of a group

 

[HideTheRum]

The only thing you are guilty of is living in a society that used to treat blacks like second class citizens.

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Think of all the whites in South Africa complaining that they are not responsible for Aparthide. Technically they are correct. So are you. That doesn't mean reparations aren't necessary or justified.

So, with this line of reasoning, you

1) affirm the existence of race as a real and legally determinable human quality
2) affirm the moral acceptability of collective racial group guilt

Which is funny, because I thought liberals

1) denied race had any scientific validity and
2) abhorred blaming entire racial groups for the activities of some members of a group

Ooops! Yet another example of liberal hypocracy.
Btw, what if a white person from South Africa moves to the U.S.? Would they too not be an African American?

 

[DamnYankee]

The only thing you are guilty of is living in a society that used to treat blacks like second class citizens.

If blacks didn't need or deserve it, we wouldn't give it.

But they do deserve it, and some need it.

But you are not guilty. However, your ancestors are guilty.

And, you may actually be guilty. Do you hire? Do you discriminate? Then you are guilty.

Think of all the whites in South Africa complaining that they are not responsible for Aparthide. Technically they are correct. So are you. That doesn't mean reparations aren't necessary or justified.

So, with this line of reasoning, you

1) affirm the existence of race as a real and legally determinable human quality
2) affirm the moral acceptability of collective racial group guilt

Which is funny, because I thought liberals

1) denied race had any scientific validity and
2) abhorred blaming entire racial groups for the activities of some members of a group

Ooops! Yet another example of liberal hypocracy.
Btw, what if a white person from South Africa moves to the U.S.? Would they too not be an African American?

I'm rather certain that thought never occurred to them.... Probably never occurred to the white South African either.

 

[editec]

I am in favor of Congress giving reparations...to anyone who is legally a slave on or after the day the bill passes or any living person who was a slave in the United States before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Bold type was added for clarity

So are you for a 100% estate tax? Doesn't seem to me like you want anyone's descendants to have any of their wealth.

The 100% inheritence tax system which I proposed wouldn't reward Blacks any more than Whites.

It would tax all inheritences and evenly divide them between every citizen.

It's probably an unworkable plan, but I like to drag it out to prove to people that -- contrary to what the masters and their obsequious servant classes tell us about how they like hard work and merit -- they no more want a level playing field that rewards merit than they want another crack in the asses.

What they want is to have and give to their children the enormous advantage of starting out with a shitload of money.

Bascially everything that comes out of the propaganda machine of the master class is a lie.

The fact that so many working class Americans fall for it, is a testament to the power of propaganda.

 

[tigerbob]

I am in favor of Congress giving reparations...to anyone who is legally a slave on or after the day the bill passes or any living person who was a slave in the United States before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Bold type was added for clarity

So are you for a 100% estate tax? Doesn't seem to me like you want anyone's descendants to have any of their wealth.

The 100% inheritence tax system which I proposed wouldn't reward Blacks any more than Whites.

It would tax all inheritences and evenly divide them between every citizen.

It's probably an unworkable plan, but I like to drag it out to prove to people that -- contrary to what the masters and their obsequious servant classes tell us about how they like hard work and merit -- they no more want a level playing field that rewards merit than they want another crack in the asses.

What they want is to have and give to their children the enormous advantage of starting out with a shitload of money.

Bascially everything that comes out of the propaganda machine of the master class is a lie.

The fact that so many working class Americans fall for it, is a testament to the power of propaganda.

If you tax all inheritance at 100%, wouldn't the real estate market collapse? If you know that when you die the government is going to take everything you have, why bother saving anything?

A vast amount of money is tied up in property, which would transfer to the government at death. What would they (i.e. the government) then do with it?

Probably tough to sell it since people wouldn't want to buy a house that the government will eventually just get back anyway.

Would they give the house away to someone disadvantaged?

Would the government become the biggest (and eventually the only) property owner in the country, and go into the housing rental business? If so, would the government have the same responsibilities that a regular landlord has for upkeep on a property?

Actually, wouldn't sales of new vehicles collapse as well? What would the government do with all the cars it is suddenly going to own? Give them away? Sell them? To whom? And how will such an administrative nightmare be funded?

I suppose one way around the property thing would be for property owners to own assets as a corporation, a company which they would own jointly with a couple hundred other property owners. Death could be treated as resignation.

I'm not trying to be flippant, though I will admit the idea of a 100% property tax is abhorrent to me and I don't see it as workable. In addition, I see it as a recipe for government mismanagement. And that's to say nothing of whether or not it is "fair" to people who have worked hard all their lives to build something that will give their children advantages. But let's leave that "fairness" point aside and just deal with it on the merits.

It may be that you've already answered these questions to some extent in another thread. If so, I'm afraid I didn't read it. A link would save you needing to repeat yourself. Assuming you can be bothered to answer my rambling stream of consciousness!

 

[editec]

So are you for a 100% estate tax? Doesn't seem to me like you want anyone's descendants to have any of their wealth.

The 100% inheritence tax system which I proposed wouldn't reward Blacks any more than Whites.

It would tax all inheritences and evenly divide them between every citizen.

It's probably an unworkable plan, but I like to drag it out to prove to people that -- contrary to what the masters and their obsequious servant classes tell us about how they like hard work and merit -- they no more want a level playing field that rewards merit than they want another crack in the asses.

What they want is to have and give to their children the enormous advantage of starting out with a shitload of money.

Bascially everything that comes out of the propaganda machine of the master class is a lie.

The fact that so many working class Americans fall for it, is a testament to the power of propaganda.

If you tax all inheritance at 100%, wouldn't the real estate market collapse?

Among other things, yes it would.

Were this plan to really be put into effect it would cause an economic clusterfuck so enormous that nobody would ever be able to get things right again.

If you know that when you die the government is going to take everything you have, why bother saving anything?

Yup! It would certainly encourage profligate spending, I totally agree.

A vast amount of money is tied up in property, which would transfer to the government at death. What would they (i.e. the government) then do with it?

Sell it and return the procedes to the surviving citizens of the nation equally.

Probably tough to sell it since people wouldn't want to buy a house that the government will eventually just get back anyway.

Yup! It would TOTALLY alter our value system, I completely agree.

Would they give the house away to someone disadvantaged?

No.

Would the government become the biggest (and eventually the only) property owner in the country, and go into the housing rental business?

It might have to, who knows?

But I think it very likely that the government would end up holding one hell of a lot of real estate waiting for buyers to take it off their hands

If so, would the government have the same responsibilities that a regular landlord has for upkeep on a property?

Come on now. You're a realist. When has the government EVER held itself to the same laws it imposes on us?

Of course, it wouldn't impose such responsibility on itself. It would exempt itself from that onus.

Actually, wouldn't sales of new vehicles collapse as well?

Proabaly not, since autos are not investments but expenditures. It would probably increase sales of cars, would be my guess.

What would the government do with all the cars it is suddenly going to own? Give them away? Sell them? To whom? And how will such an administrative nightmare be funded?

See above

I suppose one way around the property thing would be for property owners to own assets as a corporation, a company which they would own jointly with a couple hundred other property owners. Death could be treated as resignation.

Obviously shares owned by the deceased would sold by the government and the procedes given to living Americans...assuming you could find anyone interested in buying them or any other investments...which I doubt.

I'm not trying to be flippant, though I will admit the idea of a 100% property tax is abhorrent to me and I don't see it as workable.

Did you actually miss the part in my post where I noted that even I THOUGHT the idea was unworkable?

In addition, I see it as a recipe for government mismanagement.

Government doesn't NEED a recipe for mismanagment. They're naturals at that.

And that's to say nothing of whether or not it is "fair" to people who have worked hard all their lives to build something that will give their children advantages.

Fairness? We all know life ain't fair, right?

But let's leave that "fairness" point aside and just deal with it on the merits.

There ya go...lets

It may be that you've already answered these questions to some extent in another thread. If so, I'm afraid I didn't read it.

No problem.

You're actually the first person with enough balls to even ask these excellent questions.

Usually people are so utterly appauled that they just start screaming COMMUNISM and stop thinking.

A link would save you needing to repeat yourself. Assuming you can be bothered to answer my rambling stream of consciousness!

Life is a rambling stream of consciousness, amigo.

Some of us just ramble in more interesting ways than others.

I usually pull out the Editecian 100% inheritence tax when people start whining to us about a FAIR system of taxation.

My plan is just as STUPIDLY FAIR as the FLAT TAX and VAT tax, but you are apparently the first person on this board to even begin thinking about how my FAIR TAX SYSTEM does not always mean a WORKABLE FAIR SYSTEM OF TAXATION.

That's the whole reason I keep this chestnut in reserve, you see?

To show people that simplistic FAIRNESS is not always RIGHT no matter how simplistically fair it appears.