Zone1 Who should receive reparations, and who should be excluded?

[Friends2]

The national debt tripled because Tip O'Neil made a deal with Reagan to cut two dollars of spending for every dollar of increased taxes and just like on immigration, they got their tax increases and reneged on the spending cuts. Reagan also had to rebuild our military after Carter and his democrat congress had destroyed it. I was on active duty the second time during the Carter years and there was no budget for anything. We couldn't train, we couldn't even go to the range to qualify on our weapons. There was no money for vehicle parts. For a couple of instances, the batteries on my Five ton Dump Truck were worn out. Base maintenance had us pull them and take them to their shop where they drained the old acid and added new. They said it would do no good, but there were no new batteries anywhere in the supply system. They were right, the plates in the batteries were worn out. Another time someone broke the windshield in my Gamma Goat. When I left the unit almost two years later, we still hadn't received a replacement FOR A PIECE OF GLASS. So Yeah Reagan had ort spend money.

The national debt tripled because Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In addition:

"Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure)"

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Reagan's military buildup was completely unnecessary. The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan.

In 2013 the United States spent more on our military than China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil.

I am confident that when Jimmy Carter was president the United States spent more on the military than the Soviet Union, China, and a few other countries. Correct me if I am wrong, but document your assertion.

We out spent the Communists in Vietnam. They still won a total victory. The best financed, best equipped military in the world could not defeat the Taliban in twenty years. You cannot blame the Democrats for that. Bush II and Trump had the opportunities to defeat the Taliban. Both failed.

The U.S. military should be seen as another government spending program that does not work. The reason we waste so much money on that boondoggle is that military contractors are major campaign contributors, and the military is the Republican jobs program.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Why are you worried about it? You probably don't make enough money to be included.



Yet on Reagan's watch, the National Debt tripled. Not sure how that happened if the rich were paying their fair share.



And yet he put together the winning strategy for the Gulf War.

With the technical and numerical superiority we had, a Boy Scout could have developed the winning strategy for Gulf War I. We had total command of the air, we denied the Iraqis any reconnaissance at all. Wh destroyed their ability to move and communicate. We cut their supply lines. Even the second line M-60s the Marines were using were better that the best Iraqi tanks.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The national debt tripled because Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 28%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In addition:

"Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure)"

Reaganomics - Wikipedia

Reagan's military buildup was completely unnecessary. The United States was at peace. The Soviet Union was losing its war in Afghanistan.

In 2013 the United States spent more on our military than China, Russia, the UK, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil.

View attachment 699107

I am confident that when Jimmy Carter was president the United States spent more on the military than the Soviet Union, China, and a few other countries. Correct me if I am wrong, but document your assertion.

We out spent the Communists in Vietnam. They still won a total victory. The best financed, best equipped military in the world could not defeat the Taliban in twenty years. You cannot blame the Democrats for that. Bush II and Trump had the opportunities to defeat the Taliban. Both failed.

The U.S. military should be seen as another government spending program that does not work. The reason we waste so much money on that boondoggle is that military contractors are major campaign contributors, and the military is the Republican jobs program.

The US defeated the PRVN. There was a peace treaty signed in Paris ending the war on American terms.

According to UPI Soviet military spending in 1981 was forty five percent higher than US military spending.

 

[JoeB131]

The national debt tripled because Tip O'Neil made a deal with Reagan to cut two dollars of spending for every dollar of increased taxes and just like on immigration, they got their tax increases and reneged on the spending cuts.

Mostly because when they got in there, they found there really isn't a lot you CAN cut. The same problem we have now.

So, yeah, Reagan had to increase taxes because supply side doesn't work and never will, but the Republicans keep trying it. Then they go back and they find that there isn't a lot you can cut out of a budget, and sometimes you need that spending to prime the economy.

The thing is, no president has ever gotten us out of a recession without massive government spending.

Reagan also had to rebuild our military after Carter and his democrat congress had destroyed it. I was on active duty the second time during the Carter years and there was no budget for anything. We couldn't train, we couldn't even go to the range to qualify on our weapons. There was no money for vehicle parts. For a couple of instances, the batteries on my Five ton Dump Truck were worn out. Base maintenance had us pull them and take them to their shop where they drained the old acid and added new.

Um, okay. So what did Reagan do? He spent billions of $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats, on programs that didn't really work.

The main reason why the Carter era military had such issues was because we transitioned from a conscript military to a volunteer one. So a lot of money that had to be spent after Vietnam ratcheted down had to be spent on pay and benefits.

The truth is that Jimmy Carter spent MORE on the military than Jerry Ford did. The Defense budget increased from 94 Billion in 1976 to 143 Billion in 1980. As a percent of GDP, it remained about the same but that was because the economy grew in the Carter years. But even to this day, military spending never exceeded 7% and never reached the Vietnam era spending levels.

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...

www.macrotrends.net

They said it would do no good, but there were no new batteries anywhere in the supply system. They were right, the plates in the batteries were worn out. Another time someone broke the windshield in my Gamma Goat. When I left the unit almost two years later, we still hadn't received a replacement FOR A PIECE OF GLASS. So Yeah Reagan had ort spend money.

As I remember, the Gama Goat was considered kind of a failure, which is why they were largely phased out by the time I got in there in the 1980's. I can tell you as a Supply NCO at that time, the supply problems didn't get a lot better. But that might have just been my unit, which was considered low priority. But I know my unit never had enough radios or vehicles that the TO&E said we should have. And when the Gulf War came, they had to strip some equipment from some units to provide other units with enough gear to go.

 

[JoeB131]

With the technical and numerical superiority we had, a Boy Scout could have developed the winning strategy for Gulf War I. We had total command of the air, we denied the Iraqis any reconnaissance at all. Wh destroyed their ability to move and communicate. We cut their supply lines. Even the second line M-60s the Marines were using were better that the best Iraqi tanks.

If that was the case, why were our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq such failures?

The US defeated the PRVN. There was a peace treaty signed in Paris ending the war on American terms.

According to UPI Soviet military spending in 1981 was forty five percent higher than US military spending.

Um, okay, that works if you just count US spending vs. USSR... Instead of NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, then the spending isn't quite so even.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So you think whites should be made the permanent slaves of blacks? Because forcing whites, who are guilty of nothing, to hand over a portion of their earnings to blacks, who weren’t slaves, is a form of that.

Hmmm, so when Reagan gave Japanese Americans reparations for being put in concentration camps during WWII how many Americans were actually guilty of doing that at the time?

And what about the parameters I laid out in the OP?

They were racist garbage, at best.

I mean you can’t honestly think that a white car mechanic whose family arrived here a generation ago and is now earning $40,000 should have a portion of his earnings confiscated to give to a black doctor, who is the son of a doctor (one of my black doctors is a 3rd generation doctor!) and is now earning $400,000, do you?

What % of Americans do you think fall in that category?

How many black Americans fought and died in WWII and came home only to be denied access to housing and education funds provided to men who had survived. Slavery lasted from what 1655 to 1865 and then black folks had to deal with Jim Crow for at least another 80yrs and just because both practices were stopped and not to mention the injustices that were done to black folks during those periods you think everything is just peaches and cream. You really need to study some American History and educate yourself.

 

[Friends2]

Mostly because when they got in there, they found there really isn't a lot you CAN cut. The same problem we have now.

So, yeah, Reagan had to increase taxes because supply side doesn't work and never will, but the Republicans keep trying it. Then they go back and they find that there isn't a lot you can cut out of a budget, and sometimes you need that spending to prime the economy.

The thing is, no president has ever gotten us out of a recession without massive government spending.

David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed he wrote that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise military spending and balance the budget without making deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions, and without eliminating farm and business subsidies. He argued further that these cuts were not made because the vast majority of the voters, including at least a large minority of Republican voters, would have opposed those cuts. In other words, Reagan's economic policies were inherently fraudulent, because during the presidential campaign Reagan said that all of that was possible.

Also, tax increases during the Reagan administration were taxes on the middle and working classes. The top tax rate declined from 1970 to 1928.

Reagan was elected and re elected because by the late 1970's most whites had become disenchanted with the civil rights movement. They did not want their taxes to be spent helping blacks. The tax revolt, which began with the passing of Proposition 13 in California in 1978 can be seen as a draft riot against the War on Poverty. You can call that racism if you want. It is the GOP's strongest issue and it continues to win elections for Republicans.

 

[JoeB131]

David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan. In his book The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed he wrote that it was never possible to cut taxes, raise military spending and balance the budget without making deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions, and without eliminating farm and business subsidies. He argued further that these cuts were not made because the vast majority of the voters, including at least a large minority of Republican voters, would have opposed those cuts. In other words, Reagan's economic policies were inherently fraudulent, because during the presidential campaign Reagan said that all of that was possible.

Also, tax increases during the Reagan administration were taxes on the middle and working classes. The top tax rate declined from 1970 to 1928.

Reagan was elected and re elected because by the late 1970's most whites had become disenchanted with the civil rights movement. They did not want their taxes to be spent helping blacks. The tax revolt, which began with the passing of Proposition 13 in California in 1978 can be seen as a draft riot against the War on Poverty. You can call that racism if you want. It is the GOP's strongest issue and it continues to win elections for Republicans.

The sad thing is that I agree with you.

The really sad thing is that you are fine with the last paragraph. The Republicans can screw you to their hearts content, but as long as they validate your racism, you are good with it.

Well, off to work.

 

[Friends2]

How many black Americans fought and died in WWII and came home only to be denied access to housing and education funds provided to men who had survived. Slavery lasted from what 1655 to 1865 and then black folks had to deal with Jim Crow for at least another 80yrs and just because both practices were stopped and not to mention the injustices that were done to black folks during those periods you think everything is just peaches and cream. You really need to study some American History and educate yourself.

What happened to blacks in the past is not responsible for their inferior intellectual performance now and their high rates of crime and illegitimacy. Those characteristics are caused by what has never happened to blacks: human evolution has not prepared most blacks for the demands of civilization. This is the reason why the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty have been followed by increases in black social pathology, and why Head Start and No Child Left Behind have failed to close the race gap in school performance.

 

[Lisa558]

Hmmm, so when Reagan gave Japanese Americans reparations for being put in concentration camps during WWII how many Americans were actually guilty of doing that at the time?

Those were people who suffered DIRECTLY from being placed in camps. The blacks clamoring for more money from whites were not slaves, nor were they victims of Jim Crow laws.

How many black Americans fought and died in WWII and came home only to be denied access to housing and education funds provided to men who had survived. Slavery lasted from what 1655 to 1865 and then black folks had to deal with Jim Crow for at least another 80yrs and just because both practices were stopped and not to mention the injustices that were done to black folks during those periods you think everything is just peaches and cream. You really need to study some American History and educate yourself.

Again, the blacks clamoring for more of whitey’s money were not alive from 1655 to 1865, and anyone under 60 or not living in a Jim Crowe state did not deal with that either.

You really need to stop living in the past, thank the whites who lost out in educational opportunities for the past two generations to give blacks with lower grades and scores their seats (under force of course), and correct the bad behavior among the black subclass that leads to their problems.

 

[Friends2]

The sad thing is that I agree with you.

The really sad thing is that you are fine with the last paragraph. The Republicans can screw you to their hearts content, but as long as they validate your racism, you are good with it.

Well, off to work.

White racism is not the cause of black social pathology; it is the result. Most blacks are less intelligent than whites, and less sexually responsible. Many blacks are dangerous and criminal. No one should be surprised that a race with those durable characteristics arouses durable hostility.

I continue to vote Democrat, but I understand why most whites vote Republican. The Negro race, considered collectively, has been a burden to the Democrat Party. It disproves the Democrat assertion that the government can play a beneficial role in the lives of most Americans. The New Deal of the 1930's turned unemployed whites into a stable working class of tax payers who obeyed the law. The Great Society of the 1960's turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass that often supplements its welfare checks with the gains of criminal activity. During the 1960's there was a welfare rights movement that encouraged low income blacks to quit their jobs and go on welfare.

The Negro race, considered collectively, is also a burden to the United States. It is why we have social problems that countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental do not have.

There are Negroes who are intelligent, law abiding, and monogamous. These are credits to their race. Unfortunately, they are not typical. They never will be.

 

[Lisa558]

White racism is not the cause of black social pathology; it is the result. Most blacks are less intelligent than whites, and less sexually responsible. Many blacks are dangerous and criminal. No one should be surprised that a race with those durable characteristics arouses durable hostility.

I continue to vote Democrat, but I understand why most whites vote Republican. The Negro race, considered collectively, has been a burden to the Democrat Party. It disproves the Democrat assertion that the government can play a beneficial role in the lives of most Americans. The New Deal of the 1930's turned unemployed whites into a stable working class of tax payers who obeyed the law. The Great Society of the 1960's turned low income blacks into an unemployable underclass that often supplements its welfare checks with the gains of criminal activity. During the 1960's there was a welfare rights movement that encouraged low income blacks to quit their jobs and go on welfare.

The Negro race, considered collectively, is also a burden to the United States. It is why we have social problems that countries where nearly everyone is white or Oriental do not have.

There are Negroes who are intelligent, law abiding, and monogamous. These are credits to their race. Unfortunately, they are not typical. They never will be.

You really need to rethink your vote. The Democrat Party has elevated blacks, a 14% minority of the population, to a status above whites, and they are giving this slim minority focus and attention above any other group - as if they are the most important people in the country.

I just received MACYs fall booklet. You would think it’s an Ode to Black People rather than an effort to promote their clothing. The cover, as always, featured a POC, but turn inside, and it’s also mostly blacks, with the content actually SAYING that they are giving priority to blacks.

There are a couple of group pictures of several people where EVERY SINGLE PERSON os black. Once in a while they’ll intersperse a white (the majority population and most of their customers) and an Asian (to show they’re not excluding the other minority), but there is an inside section that says….wait, I’m going to get it and quote….”we’ve teamed up again with these brilliant Black design visionaries to manifest their POVs into six collections,” and then has two black, overweight models wearing loud, obnoxious outfits - one exposing the skin by her midriff.

They should have just named their promotional flyer “Ode to Black Designers” because that’s what it was. It also appears that MACYs is trying to become the first national Black People’s Department Store.

 

[Friends2]

You really need to rethink your vote. The Democrat Party has elevated blacks, a 14% minority of the population, to a status above whites, and they are giving this slim minority focus and attention above any other group - as if they are the most important people in the country.

I just received MACYs fall booklet. You would think it’s an Ode to Black People rather than an effort to promote their clothing. The cover, as always, featured a POC, but turn inside, and it’s also mostly blacks, with the content actually SAYING that they are giving priority to blacks.

There are a couple of group pictures of several people where EVERY SINGLE PERSON os black. Once in a while they’ll intersperse a white (the majority population and most of their customers) and an Asian (to show they’re not excluding the other minority), but there is an inside section that says….wait, I’m going to get it and quote….”we’ve teamed up again with these brilliant Black design visionaries to manifest their POVs into six collections,” and then has two black, overweight models wearing loud, obnoxious outfits - one exposing the skin by her midriff.

They should have just named their promotional flyer “Ode to Black Designers” because that’s what it was. It also appears that MACYs is trying to become the first national Black People’s Department Store.

I will never vote Republican. Republicans only care about rich people. Anything else they talk about is campaign rhetoric. Even on immigration Republican politicians pretend to oppose a high immigration rate. The Republican Donor Class, that owns those Republican politicians, wants more immigrants. By competing for jobs immigrants enable employees to cut wages. By competing for places to live immigrants enable landlords to raise rents.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which the vast majority of Congressional Republicans voted for, raised immigration levels, and is a major reason for the growing income gap that has benefited the rich, while leading to stagnant or declining incomes for middle class and working class people.

 

[Lisa558]

I will never vote Republican. Republicans only care about rich people. Anything else they talk about is campaign rhetoric. Even on immigration Republican politicians pretend to oppose a high immigration rate. The Republican Donor Class, that owns those Republican politicians, wants more immigrants. By competing for jobs immigrants enable employees to cut wages. By competing for places to live immigrants enable landlords to raise rents.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1965, which the vast majority of Congressional Republicans voted for, raised immigration levels, and is a major reason for the growing income gap that has benefited the rich.

I’m not rich, and yet I did very well under Trump. His lowering of the corporate taxes to a globally competitive level, and elimination of some regulations, allowed companies to be more successful, meaning that stock i owned increased in value, and I was in comfortable shape for my retirement years.

But now, as the Democrats wage war on the “mean rich” corporations, combined with their unnecessary spending during high Inflation, has seen my portfolio drop by 20% in six months. Economists are warning that if the Democrats win the midterms, the market will be even more shaken.

In the meantime, the welfare recipients who refuse to work are getting a fortune in food stamps and eating better than they ever have. I know a family of seven, with four over the age of 18, and not a single one has a job - or is looking for one. They are getting rent subsidies and food stamps. If ONE of them stayed home with the kids, and the other three got jobs at target, they would have a HHI of $100,000.

Finally, I cannot consider voting for a Party whose leader calls 60 million Americans a threat to democracy. It’s shameful, and as the descendant of Holocaust victims, I see parallels to how the Democrats Re demonizing a subset - and a large one - of American citizens.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

What happened to blacks in the past is not responsible for their inferior intellectual performance now and their high rates of crime and illegitimacy. Those characteristics are caused by what has never happened to blacks: human evolution has not prepared most blacks for the demands of civilization. This is the reason why the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty have been followed by increases in black social pathology, and why Head Start and No Child Left Behind have failed to close the race gap in school performance.

This has to be one of the most asinine post ever, bring something to back thar garbage up.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Those were people who suffered DIRECTLY from being placed in camps. The blacks clamoring for more money from whites were not slaves, nor were they victims of Jim Crow laws.

What % of black folks do you think that are living today were affected by Jim Crow? You are talking to one for starters.

Again, the blacks clamoring for more of whitey’s money were not alive from 1655 to 1865, and anyone under 60 or not living in a Jim Crowe state did not deal with that either.

How many black folks that are living today for you think are over 60? Actually anyone 55 or older had a dealing in Jim Crow.

You really need to stop living in the past, thank the whites who lost out in educational opportunities for the past two generations to give blacks with lower grades and scores their seats (under force of course), and correct the bad behavior among the black subclass that leads to their problems.

What % of whites would you say didn't go to college because someone black was selected over them as you claim

 

[AZrailwhale]

If that was the case, why were our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq such failures?



Um, okay, that works if you just count US spending vs. USSR... Instead of NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, then the spending isn't quite so even.

Militarily both Afghanistan and Iraq were clear victories. We destroyed our enemies in both countries. The problem was that idiot politicians tried to convert them into functioning democracies. Neither wanted that or was capable of managing being anything except a sectarian, authoritarian hellhole. We won both wars and gave away both peace’s.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If that was the case, why were our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq such failures?



Um, okay, that works if you just count US spending vs. USSR... Instead of NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, then the spending isn't quite so even.

No, the inbalance gets even worse. US spending was always the vast majority of NATO spending. The Warsaw Pact spent whatever the Soviets told ot to spend, which despite being a command economy was a lot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Mostly because when they got in there, they found there really isn't a lot you CAN cut. The same problem we have now.

So, yeah, Reagan had to increase taxes because supply side doesn't work and never will, but the Republicans keep trying it. Then they go back and they find that there isn't a lot you can cut out of a budget, and sometimes you need that spending to prime the economy.

The thing is, no president has ever gotten us out of a recession without massive government spending.



Um, okay. So what did Reagan do? He spent billions of $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats, on programs that didn't really work.

The main reason why the Carter era military had such issues was because we transitioned from a conscript military to a volunteer one. So a lot of money that had to be spent after Vietnam ratcheted down had to be spent on pay and benefits.

The truth is that Jimmy Carter spent MORE on the military than Jerry Ford did. The Defense budget increased from 94 Billion in 1976 to 143 Billion in 1980. As a percent of GDP, it remained about the same but that was because the economy grew in the Carter years. But even to this day, military spending never exceeded 7% and never reached the Vietnam era spending levels.

U.S. Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...

www.macrotrends.net

As I remember, the Gama Goat was considered kind of a failure, which is why they were largely phased out by the time I got in there in the 1980's. I can tell you as a Supply NCO at that time, the supply problems didn't get a lot better. But that might have just been my unit, which was considered low priority. But I know my unit never had enough radios or vehicles that the TO&E said we should have. And when the Gulf War came, they had to strip some equipment from some units to provide other units with enough gear to go.

The Goat was a good idea implemented poorly. My point was that it took more than a year and a half to replace a flat piece of glass. Carter put the US military in a deep hole that took a long time to dig out of.

 

[Mac-7]

Just for discussion purposes, let’s say reparations move forward. Who gets it, and who is exempt; and by the same token, which whites have to pay in and which are exempt?

Blacks to be excluded:

1) Since two out of three blacks were admitted to a college they would have been rejected from had they been white, they have already received reparations. Thus, blacks with a GPA and test score lower than ANY accepted white in their entering class clearly got in due to being black, and they will not get reparations.

2) Any black earning more than $75,000. This is about 50% more than the average earner, and thus they aren’t suffering because of past racism.

3) Any black whose family arrived here after 1965 If living in the South, or after 1865 if living in the North.

Whites who don’t have to pay reparations:

1) Any white student with a GPA above 3.4 who couldn’t get into medical school and had to give up their dream. Blacks got into med school with this GPA (some got in with a measly 3.2), and thus these whites have already paid the price.

2) Any white earning less than $50,000. They haven’t benefited from ”white privilege” and are most likely uneducated. They should not have to pay off blacks with a college degree.

3) Any white whose family arrived here after 1965 If living in the South, or 1865 if living in the North.

No black person born in the US who is alive today deserves reparations

If anyone does its whites who are forced to endure the lawless residue of slavery

But the africans, arabs, and white slave owners are all dead and beyond paying compensation