Jump to content

Reparations for Slavery


Slavery Reparations Policy  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the US Gov't Pay Reparations to descendants of Slavery?

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      30
  2. 2. If Reparations are paid out, will this end the racism question once and for all?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      38
  3. 3. Why should we pay Reparations?

    • It will solve the current Racism issue finally
      0
    • White Guilt
      1
    • It will address past wrongs from 300 years ago
      8
    • It will make me feel good
      1
    • It will not solve anything
      29
  4. 4. Reparations vs Social Programs

    • Should we pay Reparations to only blacks with direct Slave ancestry
      2
    • Pay Reparations to all Blacks
      3
    • Pay Reparations to only Poor Blacks (Not Doctors, Lawyers and such)
      0
    • We should enact social programs that lift everyone (even whites) out of poverty
      34


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jzk said:

Ok, that is a claim.  Make the case.  I bank at Bank of America.  The branches that I go to seem to be run by Muslims.  Are Muslims racist?

If you, sir, are looking for offense, you have found it.

My compliments!   

You blind yourself with a philosophical knife stuck and twisted into your mind’s eye.  Hideous and gruesome, jzk.  I don’t really know what your point is, because you insist we guess at it, but keep at it, maybe you’ll figure it out.  I’m tired of guessing.  Really weary....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 384
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes  Yes Address 300 years All Blacks. However. This burden does not belong just to this generation. Maybe they are the least culpable.  America has already

Just get Joe Trudeau to issue a formal apology to them.

I think this kind of statement should make individuals qualify to become "perpetual donors" to the fund. The program should reward those escaping their racial stereotypes and overt racism with economi

9 hours ago, mikewof said:

You need to know the difference between racism and institutional racism.

I think that racism isn't really a problem on which we should focus much in the USA, because there isn't a whole lot that we can do about it. People have their opinions, and they don't necessarily want to change. The only proven cure to racism is waiting for racists to die out and educate young people that the racist ideas they may have picked up along the way end up hurting them as much as others.

But institutional racism is another beast ... it can and should be legislated to oblivion because it's an enormous drag on our economy and productivity. Americans are Americans, they deserve equity, liberty and social justice regardless if they are wealthy or poor because a disgruntled minimum wage employee can ultimately cause more damage to the economy than the billionaire CFO.

If you think of institutional racism like a disease, then the vector through which it propagates is poverty. If a bank executive had a board meeting and said "I want to see bank penalties doubled in the next quarter for all of our Black customers" then that executive would be out on his ear, fired instantly, and probably sued, as he should. But when that same bank executive says "I want to see bank penalties doubled in the next quarter for all of our customers with average monthly holdings less than $500," then that executive will probably be promoted. And I had a student who told me that directives like this were exactly what happened when he worked at a major bank in Atlanta. They used statistical analysis to pick billing dates for when the customer would most likely be late with the payment, and incur the penalty. They turned off abilities in their banking software to stop authorizing payment when the customer's debit card was used and the balance was too low, to increase overdraft fees. a disproportionate number of those unemployed and broken people are Blacks, but as long as you don't say the word, do what you like, right?

Bank of America is not run by Muslims. Your local branches may be staffed by some Muslims, but they don't run the joint, it's owned by guys like Warren Buffet, who on his own is a decent enough fellow, apparently no more racist than you or I. But management has an obligation to maximize his share value, and since there is little regulation preventing their unethical business practices on customers who carry less than a $500 average balance, they do as they wish. And that typically means that they hire experts to both maintain accounts like that while concurrently draining as much money as they can from those accounts.

I'm willing to bet that you have never paid an overdraft fee, or maybe almost never paid one. The bank might make some money off of you when you get a line of credit, but in general, guys like you don't make their whiskey-drinking money. Bank of America makes those profits off of the middle class and lower middle class who max out their credit cards, in fact, I think your Bank was one of the originators of the credit card.

So in the case of those check-cashing outfits that fill the inner city, they are the only game in town lots of times. They are needed, and like the bigger banks, they do what they can get away with. It's like piss money compared to the fees that BofA pulls in on their credit cards, and in the realm of making money off of increasingly broken people, the check-cashing outfits are bit players compared to the big banks, reverse mortgage outfits and home equity lenders.

So why do people in poverty go to them? Because they often have no other choice but also because they know better. There are comparatively few banks in the inner city, and even if there were more, they wouldn't be as popular as the check cashing places because ultimately the check cashing places give their customers a personal level of service and in reality, a cheaper experience than the big banks. People who spend cash from those places don't get hit with massive overdraft fees. And yes, that payday loan is exorbitant, but it's penny ante bullshit compared to home equity loans. Your employee got in deep for what, $500 or so? A homeowner can and does lose his or her home to the tune of $200,000 in debt after a consolidation refi. Poor people use those check cashing places because it's one of the few ways that they can keep their heads above water in the era of being paid by check rather than cash. If, inthefuture.com, people start to buy and sell small items like jars of Tabasco sauce and tortillas with Bitcoin and Ethereum, then we might see a change, but the big banks are never going to let crypto happen without a fight because it would be the end of one of their revenue streams, since it's essentially a cash-based payment, rather than a credit-based payment.

Why else do they avoid banks? Sometimes it's because they have default judgements against them, which would (or did) drain money from their bank account, so they switch to cash-based. More institutional racism ... you are unlikely to ever receive a default judgement against you because -- for instance -- you have a home in which you can enjoy your beer or your joint without getting a desk-appearance ticket. If you get into an argument with your supermodel girlfriend, it's behind closed doors and usually nobody is ever the wiser. If you get into an argument with your girlfriend out in the Van Cortland Park because you don't have any privacy in your mom's two-bedroom apartment in The Bronx, with six people living in the place, then there is a good chance that the cops will get involved. If you get a parking ticket, you log into the computer and pay it with your credit card. If you're broke and you get a parking ticket, then it might mean you have to take a whole day off of work to get over the county building and pay it with cash. It's expensive and money and time to be poor. And of course, it replicates to your children because unless they are geniuses, they probably aren't going to end up at a good school or college.

You'll probably doubt all of this, but when you start to notice the machine, it's everywhere. It's in banking, clothing, transportation, grocery shopping. I'm sure that no executive says "hey, let's fuck with the Black people." But the end result is the same as when they say "hey, let's pull more profits out of our cash cow poor people."

Bank of America won't fuck with Warren Buffet and his crowd because you don't screw with the bosses. But all those broken people who get harassed by police who don't understand their communities, and who get default judgements for living their lives? It's open season on those folks. And reparations aren't going to fix that.

I read this reply fully.  I don't think you have made your case.  I don't think the banks are going after black people.  The answer here is for individual people to educate themselves about how the system works and work it to their advantage.   Even if government tried to take care of everyone, it just can't.  People need to stop relying on the government for such.  

We started with a premise that wealthy people have an incentive to keep poor people poor.  That case has not been made either.  I suspect that 99% of all businesses wish their customers were richer.  I do.  I wish people were more wealthy, so that they could buy more of my products.  I have no incentive to make anyone poor even if I had the ability.

No matter what situation you are in, there is no justification to get a payday loan.  It is foolish.  Whatever bill you need to pay, you are better off slow rolling that person than getting involved in a payday loan.  And if your kid needs emergency surgery, take them to an emergency room then.  How much surgery is the payday loan going to buy anyway?

Gambling is a similar phenomena.  Why do so many poor people enslave themselves to gambling?  Is the answer for the government to take that decision away from them?

Payday loans, gambling, and drug addiction are tough problems.  But, I think human freedom is more important than all of them.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mikewof said:

His bad decision wasn't caused by racism, he was foolish if you say so. But there is a culture of institutional racism that leads poor people to use check cashing places over banks. (The check cashing places are the one who often offer payday loans.)

Well talk about being blind as a bat.

Minorities/the underclass use check cashing services because they live paycheck to paycheck. As such they do not have a bank account and banks will not cash a check unless you either have a bank account or the issuer of the check has an account at that branch. This is not institutional racism, it is to prevent bounced checks. All banks insulate themselves from check kiting in similar fashion withholding funds availability until a check clears.

Check cashing services charge a fee to both make money and as a prophylactic to bounced checks.  .

As for payday loans, is a function of two things. First is living beyond their means and bad financial acumen. Very tempting when your wallet or purse is empty to take a payday loan. Problem is it becomes a habit and those prone just dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.

No fan of setting an artificial minimum wage, but flooding our country with immigrant workers who are unskilled drives wages down and leaves the underclass poorer and poorer. Real shame it is such a political football and for the life of me I cannot understand why the underclass has not risen up and revolted. All of you who resist border security, unchecked or loosely checked migration, who thing illegal immigration is not a problem, are the ones who are responsible for the destruction of those most vulnerable. Damn shame.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Amati said:

If you, sir, are looking for offense, you have found it.

My compliments!   

You blind yourself with a philosophical knife stuck and twisted into your mind’s eye.  Hideous and gruesome, jzk.  I don’t really know what your point is, because you insist we guess at it, but keep at it, maybe you’ll figure it out.  I’m tired of guessing.  Really weary....

You are offended?  Why?  What was hideous and gruesome?

I don't really give a fuck if you are offended, but I sincerely am wondering what it is this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

You are offended?  Why?  What was hideous and gruesome?

I don't really give a fuck if you are offended, but I sincerely am wondering what it is this time.

It really is all about you, isn’t it?

But what the hell.  :)  

The phrase ‘looking for offense’ means, in general, and also in the case you quoted ^^^^^^ above, that you, sir, are hunting for an excuse, searching for an excuse, any excuse, to become outraged at an external person or force.  You seem to enjoy the catharsis of your anger and derision?

I admit wonderment that you turned my sentence (sic) inside out (and backwards!), attempting, apparently,  to twist the meaning into my finding offense with you!  I find offense with some of your arguments (and I have GOT to hear your thoughts on the interaction of jib/main aerodynamics), not with you. 

But back to your questions above- my third sentence was a metaphor, based on a phrase of Shakespeare’s- ‘the mind’s eye’- which only exists as an artistic idea.  A ‘philosophical knife’ is what then?  An intellectual construct, a literary allusion, which, once displayed can lead to all sorts of symbolism, which I enthusiastically indulged in, in a poetic sense.  It is gratifying to know that it was an effective ploy, although I can see now it may have been overkill, kind of like the restatement of the main theme (the great gate of Kiev) at the end of Ravel’s orchestral arrangement of Mussorgsky’s ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’, or using really big cannons at the end of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture instead of drums.  So I apologize for that.  I didn’t realize how personally threatened by it you would be.  In the interest of free speech, though,  I think retracting anything on my part would be anti American, because it would imply that you or I do not believe in free speech.  I was NOT shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded room.  I assume you agree that free speech is a good thing?

My allusion of the knife and the mind’s eye was hideous and gruesome. It was meant to be.  I said it.  I was conveying what I think of your philosophy, which usually looks to me like a sledge hammer, but I was trying to find a different method of reacting to the delicacy (;) - see?) of your prose.

I think it is traditional that if you say you ‘don't give a fuck’ about what I meant, you don’t really wonder what it is I meant this time, which implies you won’t read this?  Not giving a fuck, that is.

So you may be giggling over the notion that you have caused me to spend time responding to you, but I must admit, I am excessively amused by the exercise.  It does show the economy of artistic and intellectual metaphor when wrasslin’ with complex ideas, given the number of bits I have just transmitted attempting exegesis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Well talk about being blind as a bat.

Minorities/the underclass use check cashing services because they live paycheck to paycheck. As such they do not have a bank account and banks will not cash a check unless you either have a bank account or the issuer of the check has an account at that branch. This is not institutional racism, it is to prevent bounced checks. All banks insulate themselves from check kiting in similar fashion withholding funds availability until a check clears.

Check cashing services charge a fee to both make money and as a prophylactic to bounced checks.  .

As for payday loans, is a function of two things. First is living beyond their means and bad financial acumen. Very tempting when your wallet or purse is empty to take a payday loan. Problem is it becomes a habit and those prone just dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.

No fan of setting an artificial minimum wage, but flooding our country with immigrant workers who are unskilled drives wages down and leaves the underclass poorer and poorer. Real shame it is such a political football and for the life of me I cannot understand why the underclass has not risen up and revolted. All of you who resist border security, unchecked or loosely checked migration, who thing illegal immigration is not a problem, are the ones who are responsible for the destruction of those most vulnerable. Damn shame.

Blind as a bat? You just stated what you assume is obvious and is not.

The payday loans have a better charge back rate than a lot of actual bank-derived loans and credit cards. Look at the SEC filing I linked for JZK. And lots of middle class people live paycheck to paycheck too, but they aren't locked into poverty because they have the benefit of a middle class upbringing and family. The check cashing services charge a fee, but ultimately it's lower than the banks, because they don't have a continuing revenue stream like the banks over overdraft fees and late payment fees. The "bad habit" you describe is a far bigger problem for the middle class and working class with their credit cards, than people in poverty with their payday loans. We're talking a massive disconnect in what you wrote up there, comparing something close to a trillion dollars in credit card debt versus a few billion dollars for payday loans.

You have made up your mind here with dysfunctional knowledge, which doesn't help.

And then you try to blame the problem on "flooding our country with immigrant workers." So let me get this straight ... you blame one group of poor people for keeping the other group of poor people poor? Uh ...

Thus in your mind, it has nothing to do with all the Americans who illegally hire these immigrant workers without workplace protections and to save money on their production, and Americans who create the demand for this cheap, illegal labor? Why do you think the USA's economy is so large relative to Mexico's and Canada's economy, even though our access to natural resources is smaller than Canada's and relative to population, smaller than Mexico's? Why do you think the relatively undeveloped USA was such a force in WWII, able to tool up in lighting speed? It's because of the size of our population, and that exists because of the "flood of immigrants."

The "damn shame" is ideas like your's, where you are more than happy to reap the economic benefits of the "immigrants" while concurrently demonizing them for the sins of the wealthy. Poverty is the USA is the conduit for racism, and poverty in the USA is a product of the wealthy. Nothing has changed from the days of British Colonialism, except that it now has a Standard Midwestern American accent ... the poor in the USA are designed to be kept in their coolie conditions to offer a ready source of cheap labor and unskilled service. That applies to the flood of immigrants and the children of slaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amati said:

It really is all about you, isn’t it?

But what the hell.  :)  

The phrase ‘looking for offense’ means, in general, and also in the case you quoted ^^^^^^ above, that you, sir, are hunting for an excuse, searching for an excuse, any excuse, to become outraged at an external person or force.  You seem to enjoy the catharsis of your anger and derision?

I admit wonderment that you turned my sentence (sic) inside out (and backwards!), attempting, apparently,  to twist the meaning into my finding offense with you!  I find offense with some of your arguments (and I have GOT to hear your thoughts on the interaction of jib/main aerodynamics), not with you. 

But back to your questions above- my third sentence was a metaphor, based on a phrase of Shakespeare’s- ‘the mind’s eye’- which only exists as an artistic idea.  A ‘philosophical knife’ is what then?  An intellectual construct, a literary allusion, which, once displayed can lead to all sorts of symbolism, which I enthusiastically indulged in, in a poetic sense.  It is gratifying to know that it was an effective ploy, although I can see now it may have been overkill, kind of like the restatement of the main theme (the great gate of Kiev) at the end of Ravel’s orchestral arrangement of Mussorgsky’s ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’, or using really big cannons at the end of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture instead of drums.  So I apologize for that.  I didn’t realize how personally threatened by it you would be.  In the interest of free speech, though,  I think retracting anything on my part would be anti American, because it would imply that you or I do not believe in free speech.  I was NOT shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded room.  I assume you agree that free speech is a good thing?

My allusion of the knife and the mind’s eye was hideous and gruesome. It was meant to be.  I said it.  I was conveying what I think of your philosophy, which usually looks to me like a sledge hammer, but I was trying to find a different method of reacting to the delicacy (;) - see?) of your prose.

I think it is traditional that if you say you ‘don't give a fuck’ about what I meant, you don’t really wonder what it is I meant this time, which implies you won’t read this?  Not giving a fuck, that is.

So you may be giggling over the notion that you have caused me to spend time responding to you, but I must admit, I am excessively amused by the exercise.  It does show the economy of artistic and intellectual metaphor when wrasslin’ with complex ideas, given the number of bits I have just transmitted attempting exegesis.

It is not so much that I am "giggling" over the notion that you responded, but more like sincerely wishing that I could get the time back that I spent reading your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

It is not so much that I am "giggling" over the notion that you responded, but more like sincerely wishing that I could get the time back that I spent reading your post.

Be careful what you wish for..

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mikewof said:

The "damn shame" is ideas like your's, where you are more than happy to reap the economic benefits of the "immigrants" while concurrently demonizing them for the sins of the wealthy. Poverty is the USA is the conduit for racism, and poverty in the USA is a product of the wealthy. Nothing has changed from the days of British Colonialism, except that it now has a Standard Midwestern American accent ... the poor in the USA are designed to be kept in their coolie conditions to offer a ready source of cheap labor and unskilled service. That applies to the flood of immigrants and the children of slaves.

Let's be clear.  The current immigration issue is about voting and nothing more.  The parties have seemed to have switched sides with the republicans suddenly becoming protectionist.  

There is no case to be made against immigration as long as it is done without forced welfare, criminals are screened, and there is a long path to citizenship.  Immigration is about moving people from unproductive environments to where they can be more productive.  Studies say that if we had free immigration with the constraints above, that global GDP would double.  

People immigrate to improve their lives.  If they end up being "exploited," and life sucks for them, they will stop coming.  But, traditionally in the US, they keep sending for more of their relatives.  

One thing I like about many immigrants is that they know exactly what a shithole country is, and they are willing to work hard and rise up out of poverty, if only given the opportunity.  And they come here and do exactly that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

I read this reply fully.  I don't think you have made your case.  I don't think the banks are going after black people.  The answer here is for individual people to educate themselves about how the system works and work it to their advantage.   Even if government tried to take care of everyone, it just can't.  People need to stop relying on the government for such.  

We started with a premise that wealthy people have an incentive to keep poor people poor.  That case has not been made either.  I suspect that 99% of all businesses wish their customers were richer.  I do.  I wish people were more wealthy, so that they could buy more of my products.  I have no incentive to make anyone poor even if I had the ability.

No matter what situation you are in, there is no justification to get a payday loan.  It is foolish.  Whatever bill you need to pay, you are better off slow rolling that person than getting involved in a payday loan.  And if your kid needs emergency surgery, take them to an emergency room then.  How much surgery is the payday loan going to buy anyway?

Gambling is a similar phenomena.  Why do so many poor people enslave themselves to gambling?  Is the answer for the government to take that decision away from them?

Payday loans, gambling, and drug addiction are tough problems.  But, I think human freedom is more important than all of them.

We didn't start with the premise you wrote, thus the reason you think I haven't "made my case."

I started with the premise that institutional racism is alive and well in the USA, and it propagates through poverty. I specifically wrote that the banks CANNOT "go after Black people", but you then agreed with me on that and then told me that I failed to achieve something different.

I asked you why poor people use payday loans through the check-cashing places, and you pulled up the same horse sense that I had, that it's because they are poor credit risks. But they aren't poor credit risks. And yet the banks don't seem to make much of an effort to expand into the inner city, they don't flick the switch on their payment system that shuts off overdraft fees, they rarely advertise to working class people, and even less so to those stuck in poverty. Individual people in that position have in fact "educated themselves" that they get a monumentally shitty deal from the banks, and they prefer to do business in cash through the check cashing storefronts. The obvious reality is that once the customers fall below that average $500 balance, the banks don't want them. They don't want their lower class smells in their bank lobbies, and the banks are doing everything they can to maximize profits by shutting down physical banking except for the nameplate commercial work. Guys like you and I deposit our checks by phone, we log into the computer to check the status of our accounts and we increasingly are giving the banks permissions to lock onto our accounts through our online check payments and phone deposits, and we seem to care not much about visiting a physical branch ... the little lollipops at the checkout counter aren't really the draw for us that they were when we were six years old.

Given that, why in the world would the banks then want to maintain a storefront for broken and poor people if they don't even care to maintain a storefront for wealthy customers like you?

Payday loans are -- economically speaking -- far less foolish than credit card debt and revolving credit, because they are a statistical blip compared compared to that trillion dollar industry. The "human freedom" you describe is the ultimate goal, yes. And guys like you and I seem to have a lot of it, because we were blessed to have either been born into relative wealth, or we were born into poverty but with an exceptional set of abilities that allowed us to rise to wealth.

Institutional racism is alive and well in the USA, it manifests itself as a daily shit on those who are in poverty. And poverty strongly and disproportionately puts its claws into minorities. It's like that in a lot of countries, and the USA is not an exception, regardless that we think of ourselves as exceptional.

 

Aside ... what kind of products do you make and sell?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

And then you try to blame the problem on "flooding our country with immigrant workers." So let me get this straight ... you blame one group of poor people for keeping the other group of poor people poor? Uh …

Putting aside all your howling woofsey, it is about poverty and not class. The middle class leverages credit card debt. They live beyond their means, no doubt and personally I find it nonsensical, but equating that to the lowest portion of the economic stratum is whacked. One group does it as a means of living a life style that is a bit beyond their reach. The other group does it out of necessity.

You cannot seriously believe that diluting the pool of jobs is not problematic, could you?  Unchecked immigration, legal, illegal, no difference when the result is those born in America cannot command a decent wage due to a super saturation of unskilled worker pool. Denial of that is a denial of the effects of supply and demand. Unfortunately politicians promote such policy as a means to their own success. Both politically and financially.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

Well talk about being blind as a bat.

Minorities/the underclass use check cashing services because they live paycheck to paycheck. As such they do not have a bank account and banks will not cash a check unless you either have a bank account or the issuer of the check has an account at that branch. This is not institutional racism, it is to prevent bounced checks. All banks insulate themselves from check kiting in similar fashion withholding funds availability until a check clears.

Check cashing services charge a fee to both make money and as a prophylactic to bounced checks.  .

As for payday loans, is a function of two things. First is living beyond their means and bad financial acumen. Very tempting when your wallet or purse is empty to take a payday loan. Problem is it becomes a habit and those prone just dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves.

No fan of setting an artificial minimum wage, but flooding our country with immigrant workers who are unskilled drives wages down and leaves the underclass poorer and poorer. Real shame it is such a political football and for the life of me I cannot understand why the underclass has not risen up and revolted. All of you who resist border security, unchecked or loosely checked migration, who thing illegal immigration is not a problem, are the ones who are responsible for the destruction of those most vulnerable. Damn shame.

Re the bolded part:  we can thank a public school system which doesn’t teach basic financial literacy.  But it does teach the little princes and princesses how special there are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I asked you why poor people use payday loans through the check-cashing places, and you pulled up the same horse sense that I had, that it's because they are poor credit risks. But they aren't poor credit risks. And yet the banks don't seem to make much of an effort to expand into the inner city, they don't flick the switch on their payment system that shuts off overdraft fees, they rarely advertise to working class people, and even less so to those stuck in poverty.

Aside ... what kind of products do you make and sell?

1.  If there really is a market to give more affordable loans to poor people, someone will capitalize on it.  "Don't get taken by the payday loan scam, come get a loan at mikewolf's credit emporium."

2.  You wouldn't believe it if I told you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

Let's be clear.  The current immigration issue is about voting and nothing more...    ...    ...

There is no case to be made against immigration as long as it is done without forced welfare, criminals are screened, and there is a long path to citizenship. ...    ...    ...

Why be concerned about a "long path to citizenship"? You could not pass the test yourself.

Once birthright citizenship is taken away, you'll be the one getting bussed to a sanctuary city.

As for the immigration issue being about voting, agreed- it's about convincing racists like you to get out and VOTE!! Bigly!!!!!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Why be concerned about a "long path to citizenship"? You could not pass the test yourself.

Once birthright citizenship is taken away, you'll be the one getting bussed to a sanctuary city.

As for the immigration issue being about voting, agreed- it's about convincing racists like you to get out and VOTE!! Bigly!!!!!

-DSK

The long path to citizenship prevents waves of people from immigrating and fundamentally changing the nation rapidly.  Otherwise, why even have nations.

You are calling me a racist?  You really are a piece of shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Let's be clear.  The current immigration issue is about voting and nothing more.  The parties have seemed to have switched sides with the republicans suddenly becoming protectionist.  

There is no case to be made against immigration as long as it is done without forced welfare, criminals are screened, and there is a long path to citizenship.  Immigration is about moving people from unproductive environments to where they can be more productive.  Studies say that if we had free immigration with the constraints above, that global GDP would double.  

People immigrate to improve their lives.  If they end up being "exploited," and life sucks for them, they will stop coming.  But, traditionally in the US, they keep sending for more of their relatives.  

One thing I like about many immigrants is that they know exactly what a shithole country is, and they are willing to work hard and rise up out of poverty, if only given the opportunity.  And they come here and do exactly that.  

Voting ...

U.S. politicians are the errand children of U.S. industry. The idea that the politicians have the power or even the wherewithal to do much about immigration is silly. Even President Trump couldn't do much more than just make existing fences look a tiny bit more like walls.

You put your finger on the nature of immigration ... the people who are willing to leave behind their families and come to a strange place, have a deep desire to succeed. And historically in the USA they have succeeded, and they will continue to succeed. But the children of slaves had their lineage smashed, they didn't cross the border, they were pulled over the border. In Colorado, Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, there are the great, great, great, great grandchildren of people who similarly didn't cross the border, but had the border cross them, and they often live in poverty too.

And this is where guys like you and I lose our ability to comprehend ... there are tens of millions of people in the USA who aren't driving like locomotives to achieve, achieve, achieve. They may be driven to worship, or driven to love, or driven to appreciate beauty. They don't have the tools to pull themselves our of poverty, but why should they need to have those tools? It's like suggesting that the child born to an imprisoned mother needs to have the burning desire to leave prison by tunneling under the wall with a plastic spoon, and if that child can't tunnel out, then she should be doomed to a life in prison just like her mother.

Americans deserve liberty, equity and social justice. Why? Because they are Americans. If guys like you and I can't recognize that our country continues to fail these people then we have no right to participate in the success of this country, because our American ideals have been distorted, bastardized and lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Putting aside all your howling woofsey, it is about poverty and not class. The middle class leverages credit card debt. They live beyond their means, no doubt and personally I find it nonsensical, but equating that to the lowest portion of the economic stratum is whacked. One group does it as a means of living a life style that is a bit beyond their reach. The other group does it out of necessity.

You cannot seriously believe that diluting the pool of jobs is not problematic, could you?  Unchecked immigration, legal, illegal, no difference when the result is those born in America cannot command a decent wage due to a super saturation of unskilled worker pool. Denial of that is a denial of the effects of supply and demand. Unfortunately politicians promote such policy as a means to their own success. Both politically and financially.

That's what I've been writing this whole time with JZK, he and I seem to agree on that point.

Have you considered a class in reading comprehension? You know what they say about reading right?

logo-reading-is-fundamental.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

Let's be clear.  The current immigration issue is about voting and nothing more.  The parties have seemed to have switched sides with the republicans suddenly becoming protectionist.  

There is no case to be made against immigration as long as it is done without forced welfare, criminals are screened, and there is a long path to citizenship.  Immigration is about moving people from unproductive environments to where they can be more productive.  Studies say that if we had free immigration with the constraints above, that global GDP would double.  

People immigrate to improve their lives.  If they end up being "exploited," and life sucks for them, they will stop coming.  But, traditionally in the US, they keep sending for more of their relatives.  

One thing I like about many immigrants is that they know exactly what a shithole country is, and they are willing to work hard and rise up out of poverty, if only given the opportunity.  And they come here and do exactly that.  

I disagree in that while expanding of the voting pool has real consequences, it is not wholly the motivation of unchecked immigration. It is about cheap labor and by definition that is achieved by diluting the unskilled worker pool. The curious part I find is that politicians promise those lower end wage earns benefits to compensate for the lack of a good wage. It is purely disingenuous as first we have a policy to destroy lower end wages and then make promises of social redistribution to compensate for flooding/destroying the ability to earn a decent living. And we do so with a smirk.

Very sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Voting ...

U.S. politicians are the errand children of U.S. industry. The idea that the politicians have the power or even the wherewithal to do much about immigration is silly. Even President Trump couldn't do much more than just make existing fences look a tiny bit more like walls.

You put your finger on the nature of immigration ... the people who are willing to leave behind their families and come to a strange place, have a deep desire to succeed. And historically in the USA they have succeeded, and they will continue to succeed. But the children of slaves had their lineage smashed, they didn't cross the border, they were pulled over the border. In Colorado, Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, there are the great, great, great, great grandchildren of people who similarly didn't cross the border, but had the border cross them, and they often live in poverty too.

And this is where guys like you and I lose our ability to comprehend ... there are tens of millions of people in the USA who aren't driving like locomotives to achieve, achieve, achieve. They may be driven to worship, or driven to love, or driven to appreciate beauty. They don't have the tools to pull themselves our of poverty, but why should they need to have those tools? It's like suggesting that the child born to an imprisoned mother needs to have the burning desire to leave prison by tunneling under the wall with a plastic spoon, and if that child can't tunnel out, then she should be doomed to a life in prison just like her mother.

Americans deserve liberty, equity and social justice. Why? Because they are Americans. If guys like you and I can't recognize that our country continues to fail these people then we have no right to participate in the success of this country, because our American ideals have been distorted, bastardized and lost.

I suggest that current welfare programs do more to chain people into poverty and reliance on government than they do to lift them out of their predicament.  And, I think that those who advocate government as the solution are more about selling themselves and their own power than they are about helping anyone.  They need people to be needy, otherwise, who needs them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillDBastard said:

I disagree in that while expanding of the voting pool has real consequences, it is not wholly the motivation of unchecked immigration. It is about cheap labor and by definition that is achieved by diluting the unskilled worker pool. The curious part I find is that politicians promise those lower end wage earns benefits to compensate for the lack of a good wage. It is purely disingenuous as first we have a policy to destroy lower end wages and then make promises of social redistribution to compensate for flooding/destroying the ability to earn a decent living. And we do so with a smirk.

Very sad.

What is wrong with cheap labor?  To the immigrant it is a better deal than they had before.  To the employer it is a better deal than they could get before.  To the consumer of that product, it is a better deal than they had before.  That first immigrant job is not a life sentence, but a chance to learn skills, earn some money, and become more valuable to society.  A stepping stone, like your first high school job.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

I suggest that current welfare programs do more to chain people into poverty and reliance on government than they do to lift them out of their predicament.  And, I think that those who advocate government as the solution are more about selling themselves and their own power than they are about helping anyone.  They need people to be needy, otherwise, who needs them?

Exactly. It perpetuates dependency and in turn perpetuates re-election. Power of the elites over the impoverished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

The long path to citizenship prevents waves of people from immigrating and fundamentally changing the nation rapidly.  Otherwise, why even have nations.

You are calling me a racist?  You really are a piece of shit.

We are racist! I'm racist.

How could we not be racist? We have been raised with racism, spoon fed racism every day of our lives in our schools, our jobs, our newspapers and our books. It's not a choice we make, it's a condition of being raised in a world where certain types of people need to be minimized and dehumanized in order to present a rally point and a economic seed point around which money can coalesce.

I'm not proud of my racism, but I'm not ashamed of it either, I'm a product of my environment. My one little minor saving grace, and it's not worth a whole lot ... is that I want something better for my children. But they'll absorb a little bit of it just like I absorbed a lot of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

What is wrong with cheap labor?  To the immigrant it is a better deal than they had before.  To the employer it is a better deal than they could get before.  To the consumer of that product, it is a better deal than they had before.  That first immigrant job is not a life sentence, but a chance to learn skills, earn some money, and become more valuable to society.  A stepping stone, like your first high school job.  

Not when it is at the expense of the ability for folks to command a better wage.

Now don't get me wrong, I think better education to see the improvement of skills as a means to a better wage, thus better life paramount. However we undermine the resources available to better educate by flooding that lower end of pay scale pool.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BillDBastard said:

Not when it is at the expense of the ability for folks to command a better wage.

How does it do that?  The way to command a better wage is to learn and implement a skill that is valuable to society.  It is not to keep even poorer people than yourself from bettering themselves.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I suggest that current welfare programs do more to chain people into poverty and reliance on government than they do to lift them out of their predicament.  And, I think that those who advocate government as the solution are more about selling themselves and their own power than they are about helping anyone.  They need people to be needy, otherwise, who needs them?

Welfare is a shitty, shitty thing to do to someone you love.

It's needed as a stopgap until we can unravel this ball of tangled shit that we've inherited in the USA. We have a great country, but it was built on the backs of slaves and on the exploited.

"Government" is one of the few ways that normal Americans can change things. Some people are wealthy enough to change things directly, you were able to help your employee out of a predatory loan that might well have set him back by twenty years. I don't look to the Government for solutions, I look around for solutions, and then I help to hire my employees in the government who see things my way and can fix things the way I would like. Sometimes I see sufficiently eye-to-eye with enough of my fellow voters that we get something done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mikewof said:

We are racist! I'm racist.

How could we not be racist? We have been raised with racism, spoon fed racism every day of our lives in our schools, our jobs, our newspapers and our books. It's not a choice we make, it's a condition of being raised in a world where certain types of people need to be minimized and dehumanized in order to present a rally point and a economic seed point around which money can coalesce.

I'm not proud of my racism, but I'm not ashamed of it either, I'm a product of my environment. My one little minor saving grace, and it's not worth a whole lot ... is that I want something better for my children. But they'll absorb a little bit of it just like I absorbed a lot of it.

I don't buy it.  No one needs to be minimized and dehumanized for there to be economic prosperity for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

How does it do that?  The way to command a better wage is to learn and implement a skill that is valuable to society.  It is not to keep even poorer people than yourself from bettering themselves.  

I can't believe some don't understand this...……...

Try this, you have 10 positions available and 20 candidates for that position. You can pick and choose those willing to take less for that position.

You have 20 positions available and only 10 candidates. Those employers now pay a higher wage to fill those necessary positions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

I don't buy it.  No one needs to be minimized and dehumanized for there to be economic prosperity for everyone.

For some it is a fear of flying. For others it is a means to get even with an unjust system, or what they perceive is an unjust system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

I can't believe some don't understand this...……...

Try this, you have 10 positions available and 20 candidates for that position. You can pick and choose those willing to take less for that position.

You have 20 positions available and only 10 candidates. Those employers now pay a higher wage to fill those necessary positions.

You just fucked over 10 people.  What about them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Payday loans are -- economically speaking -- far less foolish than credit card debt and revolving credit, because they are a statistical blip compared compared to that trillion dollar industry. The "human freedom" you describe is the ultimate goal, yes. And guys like you and I seem to have a lot of it, because we were blessed to have either been born into relative wealth, or we were born into poverty but with an exceptional set of abilities that allowed us to rise to wealth.

Payday loans are a way to make easy money off of people making poor financial choices.  And, this phenomenon is not limited to poor people.

Amazon and paypal have moved into similar ventures.  For people that sell online, Amazon pays every two weeks, and paypal pays whenever you want in about 1 business day.  There is a service being advertised on Amazon that will pay you every day or whenever you want for a fee.  And that fee is outrageous.  It is so outrageous that I am shocked Amazon even allows that firm to advertise there.  But they do.  And now paypal has started a service that will pay you instantly for like a 1% fee or so.  As if the next business day for free weren't good enough.

No shortage of people looking to take advantage of ignorant people.  The answer is to stop being ignorant, not to rely on other people to protect you from bad financial choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

You just fucked over 10 people.  What about them?

You are looking at this ass backwards. I didn't fuk over 10 people I improved the lives of legally born here. I do have sympathy for those from countries of less economic opportunity. That said their goal should be to change their country first and foremost. Fact of the matter is that by allowing those folks to wander into our country only further fuks the country they came from because those leaving are the ones who have the will and ambition to improve their homelands the most. 

So answer this question sir or ma'am. Is it fair for America to open its borders or relax our immigration laws to the determent of those born here as well as those countries they are leaving to come here? I do not believe so. We should be an example of how to achieve economic prosperity, not poaching talent from countries that seek economic prosperity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

You are looking at this ass backwards. I didn't fuk over 10 people I improved the lives of legally born here. I do have sympathy for those from countries of less economic opportunity. That said their goal should be to change their country first and foremost. Fact of the matter is that by allowing those folks to wander into our country only further fuks the country they came from because those leaving are the ones who have the will and ambition to improve their homelands the most. 

So answer this question sir or ma'am. Is it fair for America to open its borders or relax our immigration laws to the determent of those born here as well as those countries they are leaving to come here? I do not believe so. We should be an example of how to achieve economic prosperity, not poaching talent from countries that seek economic prosperity.

That is not how it works.  Everyone can win.  Perhaps there is a segment of lazy Americans that will lose, but would you really condemn those 10 people to misery over those that are too lazy to compete with immigrants?  And, I think the data shows that the negative impact just isn't that great.  All of them have opportunity.  The very opportunity that those 10 immigrants would give anything to have.  If some Americans don't appreciate that opportunity, what can you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Why do you hate Americans so?

My plan is win-win-win.  How is it fair that someone was born on the wrong side of the line?  If ever there was economic inequality, there it is.  America stands for freedom and opportunity for all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

...   ...    ...

Americans deserve liberty, equity and social justice. Why? Because they are Americans. If guys like you and I can't recognize that our country continues to fail these people then we have no right to participate in the success of this country, because our American ideals have been distorted, bastardized and lost.

 

This is almost a great writing. Unfortunately you left a bit out; I am not a great writer who can express the whole idea in few simple words, but: Americans don't deserve liberty, equality, and justice, merely because they hold the name "American." They deserve it because our forefathers wanted it for us, wanted it so badly that they schemed and planned and educated themselves on philosophy and history and law so that they could write it into our government, pledged their fortunes, their honor, and their lives for it; then further generations of Americans believed so much that they were willing to immigrate here, work and learn and struggle (including VOTING), and sometimes fight to the death, for it.

The current generations of Americans is giving it up, because the people taking it away from them offer cheap entertainment and a self-esteem booster for the emotionally dysfunctional.

It was never easy, and now it may be gone. I hope not.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

This is almost a great writing. Unfortunately you left a bit out; I am not a great writer who can express the whole idea in few simple words, but: Americans don't deserve liberty, equality, and justice, merely because they hold the name "American." They deserve it because our forefathers wanted it for us, wanted it so badly that they schemed and planned and educated themselves on philosophy and history and law so that they could write it into our government, pledged their fortunes, their honor, and their lives for it; then further generations of Americans believed so much that they were willing to immigrate here, work and learn and struggle (including VOTING), and sometimes fight to the death, for it.

The current generations of Americans is giving it up, because the people taking it away from them offer cheap entertainment and a self-esteem booster for the emotionally dysfunctional.

It was never easy, and now it may be gone. I hope not.

-DSK

Americans deserve those things because they are human beings with natural rights.  Of course, all other human beings deserve it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

Americans deserve those things because they are human beings with natural rights.  Of course, all other human beings deserve it too.

Really?

For 25,000 years of history before 1776, did humans NOT have those "natural rights"? They suddenly dropped out of nowhere when Ben Franklin used a kite to dump all the tea into Boston Harbor?

It takes an ignoramus to believe that it takes no education to propose, negotiate, frame, and establish, a government which enables these "natural rights" and a sizeable body of capable citizens to maintain it.

You may (or may not) recall that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are "endowed with certain inalienable rights," he did not suggest going into a church and praying for them.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

This is almost a great writing. Unfortunately you left a bit out; I am not a great writer who can express the whole idea in few simple words, but: Americans don't deserve liberty, equality, and justice, merely because they hold the name "American." They deserve it because our forefathers wanted it for us, wanted it so badly that they schemed and planned and educated themselves on philosophy and history and law so that they could write it into our government, pledged their fortunes, their honor, and their lives for it; then further generations of Americans believed so much that they were willing to immigrate here, work and learn and struggle (including VOTING), and sometimes fight to the death, for it.

The current generations of Americans is giving it up, because the people taking it away from them offer cheap entertainment and a self-esteem booster for the emotionally dysfunctional.

It was never easy, and now it may be gone. I hope not.

-DSK

I like your description better.

And yes to your bit in bold, we've stopped fighting for freedom in part because of our addictions to television and sugar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Really?

For 25,000 years of history before 1776, did humans NOT have those "natural rights"? They suddenly dropped out of nowhere when Ben Franklin used a kite to dump all the tea into Boston Harbor?

It takes an ignoramus to believe that it takes no education to propose, negotiate, frame, and establish, a government which enables these "natural rights" and a sizeable body of capable citizens to maintain it.

You may (or may not) recall that when Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are "endowed with certain inalienable rights," he did not suggest going into a church and praying for them.

-DSK

They always had those rights.  The Constitution does not create rights.  It just tries to prevent government from infringing those rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jzk said:

They always had those rights.  The Constitution does not create rights.  It just tries to prevent government from infringing those rights.

Funny thing, if people -always- had those rights, then why didn't they actually get those rights?

As for preventing government from infringing: yes. Now, what parts of the Constitution is President Trump upholding?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Funny thing, if people -always- had those rights, then why didn't they actually get those rights?

As for preventing government from infringing: yes. Now, what parts of the Constitution is President Trump upholding?

-DSK

Of course, the purpose of government is to protect those rights.  Throughout human history, those rights were violated because some people want to control other people.  Why do you suppose that is?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillDBastard said:

You are looking at this ass backwards. I didn't fuk over 10 people I improved the lives of legally born here. I do have sympathy for those from countries of less economic opportunity. That said their goal should be to change their country first and foremost. Fact of the matter is that by allowing those folks to wander into our country only further fuks the country they came from because those leaving are the ones who have the will and ambition to improve their homelands the most. 

So answer this question sir or ma'am. Is it fair for America to open its borders or relax our immigration laws to the determent of those born here as well as those countries they are leaving to come here? I do not believe so. We should be an example of how to achieve economic prosperity, not poaching talent from countries that seek economic prosperity.

Imagine if that was someone’s position. Imagine!

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, jzk said:
32 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Funny thing, if people -always- had those rights, then why didn't they actually get those rights?

As for preventing government from infringing: yes. Now, what parts of the Constitution is President Trump upholding?

 

Of course, the purpose of government is to protect those rights.  Throughout human history, those rights were violated because some people want to control other people.  Why do you suppose that is?

Why should I answer your question, when you ignore mine? Are you trying to be one of those people who control other people? If so, you failed. Again.

Now, to repeat: if people -always- had these inalienable rights, why didn't they actually receive them? Humans have had civil gov't for well over 5,000 years. It just doesn't make any sense that these rights always existed, hovering in the background, and suddenly we Americans get them! Was it some kind of magic?

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo.... back on topic after this stupid payday loan hijack.  So are we pretty much all in agreement that reparations paid to descendants of slaves is a stupid fucking idea?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why should I answer your question, when you ignore mine? Are you trying to be one of those people who control other people? If so, you failed. Again.

Now, to repeat: if people -always- had these inalienable rights, why didn't they actually receive them? Humans have had civil gov't for well over 5,000 years. It just doesn't make any sense that these rights always existed, hovering in the background, and suddenly we Americans get them! Was it some kind of magic?

-DSK

Well it wasn't very civil if it didn't protect rights.  That is why our free society is precious, and we should not surrender our freedom to the authoritarians.  

If you want to learn about rights, there is lots of reading out there for you.  Start with John Locke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jzk said:

...   ...    ...

If you want to learn about rights, there is lots of reading out there for you.  Start with John Locke.

I'm a little pressed for time, don't want to read a big thick book just now. How about loaning me your comic-book version? It's right there on the shelf next to your comic-book version of Adam Smith

OTOH you could read this thread, and try to answer the questions I've asked you. It seems you claim these rights ALWAYS existed and then suggest philosophy from ~4,600 years after gov't was invented. Where were these rights all that time? Perhaps some earlier philosophy, or better yet political treatise, be a better place to start?

Who knew it was so complicated to be smart! You gotta understand facts 'n shit!

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm a little pressed for time, don't want to read a big thick book just now. How about loaning me your comic-book version? It's right there on the shelf next to your comic-book version of Adam Smith

OTOH you could read this thread, and try to answer the questions I've asked you. It seems you claim these rights ALWAYS existed and then suggest philosophy from ~4,600 years after gov't was invented. Where were these rights all that time? Perhaps some earlier philosophy, or better yet political treatise, be a better place to start?

Who knew it was so complicated to be smart! You gotta understand facts 'n shit!

-DSK

That someone violated your rights does not mean that you don't have them.  Humans have always had rights.  If, somewhere in history, humans were granted rights from government, then government has the right to take them away.  It does not.  They are rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this John Locke character was invested in the slave trade (Royal African Company). And he did help write the Constitution of Carolina (1665) giving master absolute rights of his slave property. So you might want to factor that in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

...    ...     ...  OTOH you could read this thread, and try to answer the questions I've asked you. It seems you claim these rights ALWAYS existed and then suggest philosophy from ~4,600 years after gov't was invented. Where were these rights all that time? Perhaps some earlier philosophy, or better yet political treatise, be a better place to start?

...    ...    ...

That someone violated your rights does not mean that you don't have them.  Humans have always had rights.  If, somewhere in history, humans were granted rights from government, then government has the right to take them away.  It does not.  They are rights.

OK, now I think I get it........... the rights exist somewhere out there, have always been there, and will always be there. We humans had them long before they were ever thought of, and will always have them even if a mean bad goverment (Socialism!!) takes them away.

Is one of these rights the one that lets you waterboard suspected terrorists? They're not human, correct, therefor terrorists have no rights?

This is complicated

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sooo.... back on topic after this stupid payday loan hijack.  So are we pretty much all in agreement that reparations paid to descendants of slaves is a stupid fucking idea?  

No. I think something should be done about the long term economic damage done to people simply because of the color of their skin. All that red-lining and discrimination in hiring. For a bit it was deemed OK to have affirmative action in hiring and the ability to live in houses which actually accrue value over time. However that shit has been damned as racist.

  Nothing for it but to go whole-warthog. For instance, every jet fighter jockey should be black for the next 50 years or so...aside from a few tokens, and maybe a few units which will be disbanded every time there is a surplus. That oughta even things up a bit. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sooo.... back on topic after this stupid payday loan hijack.  So are we pretty much all in agreement that reparations paid to descendants of slaves is a stupid fucking idea?  

The payday loan "hijack" directly deals with the issues of institutional racism that are at the heart of the reparations issue. It's far from a hijack.

And I've no idea if reparations will be a "stupid fucking idea" in the future, and you can't possibly know that either. There might be a way to do it correctly, perhaps fund the shit out of inner city schools that have been starving to death under the Every Child Left Behind Act, signed by President Bush in 2002, and causing trouble ever since.

But right now, I think that Kent hit the nail on the head, there are a lot of people who would be only too happy to write a check in order to cleanse their distaste for what they choose not to see. The patient needs some intensive rehab before the drunk driver can accept responsibility for what he did.

The one plus side of reparations, is that they can at least focus public opinion on the problem, and educate. I think Americans have no idea what it's really like, the inner city is invisible to most of us. Guys like Frenchy, Point Break and some others here have seen it, but the rest of us ... we tend not to know that nearly half of all Black children in the USA are living in poverty. That's just looney toons. We can't possibly be Americans when millions of our children can't see a future with anything special in it.

african-american-children-poverty.si.jpg

So maybe some symbolic reparations can start right away ... say we approve $50 million/year for schools that have the highest concentrations of children in poverty, and increase that by 10% every year until no more American children (of all races) have to live in poverty. Pocket change, but it will start to increase and eventually the problem won't be swept under the rug.

It could be manageable to assign the cash too ... each school can seek $10,000 funding, minimal refereeing, the amount of money per school isn't that much, total say 2,000 of those grants per year. Then they can compete to do the most with that money, and move to a $50,000 grant competition in 6 months. $5 million to manage the program per year, that leaves 500 grants per year of $50,000 each. By competing, the schools can leverage that relatively small amount of money with the parents and students to make better things happen.

But $50 million/year is a pocket change, it's the cost of a turret or two on the Littoral Combat Ship. Hell, I'll be that the Defense Department would even pony up  the $50 million/year if they could be assured of better educated recruits in ten years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sooo.... back on topic after this stupid payday loan hijack.  So are we pretty much all in agreement that reparations paid to descendants of slaves is a stupid fucking idea?  

No. I think something should be done about the long term economic damage done to people simply because of the color of their skin. All that red-lining and discrimination in hiring. For a bit it was deemed OK to have affirmative action in hiring and the ability to live in houses which actually accrue value over time. However that shit has been damned as racist.

  Nothing for it but to go whole-warthog. For instance, every jet fighter jockey should be black for the next 50 years or so...aside from a few tokens, and maybe a few units which will be disbanded every time there is a surplus. That oughta even things up a bit. 

Well, that's one way to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

There are a number of black intellectuals - including our former president incidentally - who've pointed out that the institution most failing people of color is that of marriage.

Apologies, but fixed for simplicity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

The payday loan "hijack" directly deals with the issues of institutional racism that are at the heart of the reparations issue. It's far from a hijack.

And I've no idea if reparations will be a "stupid fucking idea" in the future, and you can't possibly know that either. There might be a way to do it correctly, perhaps fund the shit out of inner city schools that have been starving to death under the Every Child Left Behind Act, signed by President Bush in 2002, and causing trouble ever since.

But right now, I think that Kent hit the nail on the head, there are a lot of people who would be only too happy to write a check in order to cleanse their distaste for what they choose not to see. The patient needs some intensive rehab before the drunk driver can accept responsibility for what he did.

The one plus side of reparations, is that they can at least focus public opinion on the problem, and educate. I think Americans have no idea what it's really like, the inner city is invisible to most of us. Guys like Frenchy, Point Break and some others here have seen it, but the rest of us ... we tend not to know that nearly half of all Black children in the USA are living in poverty. That's just looney toons. We can't possibly be Americans when millions of our children can't see a future with anything special in it.

 

So maybe some symbolic reparations can start right away ... say we approve $50 million/year for schools that have the highest concentrations of children in poverty, and increase that by 10% every year until no more American children (of all races) have to live in poverty. Pocket change, but it will start to increase and eventually the problem won't be swept under the rug.

It could be manageable to assign the cash too ... each school can seek $10,000 funding, minimal refereeing, the amount of money per school isn't that much, total say 2,000 of those grants per year. Then they can compete to do the most with that money, and move to a $50,000 grant competition in 6 months. $5 million to manage the program per year, that leaves 500 grants per year of $50,000 each. By competing, the schools can leverage that relatively small amount of money with the parents and students to make better things happen.

But $50 million/year is a pocket change, it's the cost of a turret or two on the Littoral Combat Ship. Hell, I'll be that the Defense Department would even pony up  the $50 million/year if they could be assured of better educated recruits in ten years.

Ummmmm, stop, just stop. How are we "correcting" past racism by perpetuating race based decisions of funding or if you will, privilege?

Yes I think we need to fix our inner city schools and fortify weaker preforming school districts so that those in coming from areas of poverty are not destine to live in poverty for generations. But it should not have a damn thing to do with race, color, creed or gender. It should be 100% neutral in any such qualification.

As for reparations. It is clear as the nose on your damn face this is nothing more than pandering. What that tells me is that Ms.Owens might be onto something in saying the African American vote is up for grabs in 2020.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Ummmmm, stop, just stop. How are we "correcting" past racism by perpetuating race based decisions of funding or if you will, privilege?

Yes I think we need to fix our inner city schools and fortify weaker preforming school districts so that those in coming from areas of poverty are not destine to live in poverty for generations. But it should not have a damn thing to do with race, color, creed or gender. It should be 100% neutral in any such qualification.

As for reparations. It is clear as the nose on your damn face this is nothing more than pandering. What that tells me is that Ms.Owens might be onto something in saying the African American vote is up for grabs in 2020.

40% of Black children live in poverty in this country. $50 million/year extra to start to fix the neglected and NCLBA-damaged schools would at least address the problem a bit ... it wouldn't do much to convince the unbelievers that racism still exists, but I think even a heavenly sign to that effect wouldn't convince them.

Call school aid for areas in poverty what you will, but "pandering" is a description that only the blissfully ignorant could use in this case.

And again, a few tens of millions per year is a bargain to help the military get the diversity they need,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/why-the-military-needs-diversity/amp/

And aside from my lefty thought that you seem to despise, it's an opportunity to see Dwight Eisenhower's vision realized ...

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron'" -- Dwight Eisenhower

How people like you can find this "pandering" is a national embarrassment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mikewof said:

40% of Black children live in poverty in this country. $50 million/year extra to start to fix the neglected and NCLBA-damaged schools would at least address the problem a bit ... it wouldn't do much to convince the unbelievers that racism still exists, but I think even a heavenly sign to that effect wouldn't convince them.

Call school aid for areas in poverty what you will, but "pandering" is a description that only the blissfully ignorant could use in this case.

...    ...    ...

How people like you can find this "pandering" is a national embarrassment. 

Because deep down inside, they genuinely believe that dark-skinned people are inferior and shouldn't be in school or in any job other than menial labor

Because they resent every dark-skinned young person in a good school, because they obviously took that spot away from a white kid.

Because they believe that taxation is theft and they don't want to pay for schools so they can live in a society with paved roads and indoor plumbing, much less cell phones and weather satellites.

I'm glad they've at least learned to be polite about it, but this belief is going to take a really long time to extinguish

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

Ummmmm, stop, just stop. How are we "correcting" past racism by perpetuating race based decisions of funding or if you will, privilege?

Yes I think we need to fix our inner city schools and fortify weaker preforming school districts so that those in coming from areas of poverty are not destine to live in poverty for generations. But it should not have a damn thing to do with race, color, creed or gender. It should be 100% neutral in any such qualification.

As for reparations. It is clear as the nose on your damn face this is nothing more than pandering. What that tells me is that Ms.Owens might be onto something in saying the African American vote is up for grabs in 2020.

The bolded section is what our Democrat friends fear more than anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, now I think I get it........... the rights exist somewhere out there, have always been there, and will always be there. We humans had them long before they were ever thought of, and will always have them even if a mean bad goverment (Socialism!!) takes them away.

Is one of these rights the one that lets you waterboard suspected terrorists? They're not human, correct, therefor terrorists have no rights?

This is complicated

-DSK

Yes.  We always had them.  Was slavery wrong in 2000 BC?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There are a number of black intellectuals - including our former president incidentally - who've pointed out that the institution most failing people of color is that of marriage.

Apologies, but fixed for simplicity.

 

Just because your marriage is failing doesn't mean they all are.  Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

There are a number of black intellectuals - including our former president incidentally - who've pointed out that the institution most failing people of color is that of marriage.

 

I think @cmilliken got it exactly right.  The first step in changing that reality is for more people of color to recognize that reality.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, now I think I get it........... the rights exist somewhere out there, have always been there, and will always be there. We humans had them long before they were ever thought of, and will always have them even if a mean bad goverment (Socialism!!) takes them away.

...    ...     ...

Yes.  We always had them. ...    ...     ...

I get it. This is one of those Libertarian word games where the facts and actual reality have nothing to do with the things you write / say.

"We -always- had these rights" but it took 4,000+ years of history before people with intelligence and education, and the ability to compromise, -AND- the ability to provide leadership to a large group of determined fighters, to enact these rights and actually start to HAVE (in the non-Libertarian sense of the word) these rights.

 

1 hour ago, jzk said:

Yes.  We always had them.  Was slavery wrong in 2000 BC?

Since it was almost universal, and nobody present to debate it was alive then; only a Libertarian would argue that it makes any difference.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I get it. This is one of those Libertarian word games where the facts and actual reality have nothing to do with the things you write / say.

"We -always- had these rights" but it took 4,000+ years of history before people with intelligence and education, and the ability to compromise, -AND- the ability to provide leadership to a large group of determined fighters, to enact these rights and actually start to HAVE (in the non-Libertarian sense of the word) these rights.

 

Since it was almost universal, and nobody present to debate it was alive then; only a Libertarian would argue that it makes any difference.

-DSK

If a police officer pulls you over and searches you without cause, do you have rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, J28 said:

I think @cmilliken got it exactly right.  The first step in changing that reality is for more people of color to recognize that reality.  

It's not my hypothesis.   I just listened.  Obama talks at my brother's keeper and others at similar forums

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jzk said:

If a police officer pulls you over and searches you without cause, do you have rights?

That depends very much on who you are, who the police officer is, where you are, and whether the socioeconomic system you are part of recognizes and allows enforcement of rights; as well as whether or not YOU personally can gain access to said enforcement.

Rights: each right you have, and act upon, entails an obligation. Each right you have is only as good as your ability to exercise.

This is why Trumptardian America is going downhill so fast. They want a free ride, a fantasyland of rights with no obligation and a lot of yack-yack blah-blah about FREEDOM!! And subconsciously (or not so subconsciously in many cases) they actually believe that they should be ruled over by an entitled aristocracy.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

That depends very much on who you are, who the police officer is, where you are, and whether the socioeconomic system you are part of recognizes and allows enforcement of rights; as well as whether or not YOU personally can gain access to said enforcement.

Rights: each right you have, and act upon, entails an obligation. Each right you have is only as good as your ability to exercise.

This is why Trumptardian America is going downhill so fast. They want a free ride, a fantasyland of rights with no obligation and a lot of yack-yack blah-blah about FREEDOM!! And subconsciously (or not so subconsciously in many cases) they actually believe that they should be ruled over by an entitled aristocracy.

-DSK

No need to shit your pants.  You have rights regardless of whether the police officer violates them.  The primary purpose of government is to protect those rights.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

It's not my hypothesis.   I just listened.  Obama talks at my brother's keeper and others at similar forums

I get that and appreciate your posting it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

No need to shit your pants.  You have rights regardless of whether the police officer violates them.  The primary purpose of government is to protect those rights.  

Sure, just kneel down and pray pray pray to the Church of Eternal Rights. You and your descendants will have all the rights you want!

To have a government that respects those rights takes the participation of citizens who understand a few basic facts. Libtardian blowhards won't cut it.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

You have rights regardless of whether the police officer violates them.  

Unless they take them away and lie to everyone about doing it and turn off their bodycams before doing it, but of course that would never happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Unless they take them away and lie to everyone about doing it and turn off their bodycams before doing it, but of course that would never happen.

All kinds of rights violations occur.  The primary purpose of government is to protect the citizens against such.

You think libertarians are big fans of the police?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Unless they take them away and lie to everyone about doing it and turn off their bodycams before doing it, but of course that would never happen.

You think that if we give the government too much power that it might abuse that power?  Who would have thought?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jzk said:

You think that if we give the government too much power that it might abuse that power?  Who would have thought?

Well, at the moment, in the USA we have a political party which is trying to develop a network of brownshirts to beat up their political adversaries. Obviously, the rights of the citizenry are not a major concern of anybody who votes for this party.

So far, though, Republicans have proven to be such a buncha pussies that few of them are willing to go out and fight in the streets. Still, if they continue to recruit judges and LEOs along the lines of their own thinking, the gov't of the USA will drop even the pretense of respecting citizens rights.

Of course, by YOUR "definition" of the word, you'll still have all the rights you ever had. Maybe more

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Because deep down inside, they genuinely believe that dark-skinned people are inferior and shouldn't be in school or in any job other than menial labor

Because they resent every dark-skinned young person in a good school, because they obviously took that spot away from a white kid.

Because they believe that taxation is theft and they don't want to pay for schools so they can live in a society with paved roads and indoor plumbing, much less cell phones and weather satellites.

I'm glad they've at least learned to be polite about it, but this belief is going to take a really long time to extinguish

-DSK

I think you're onto something here, but I think that emotionally coherent people in 2019 don't resent anyone for the color of their skin, but rather the averageness of our abilities. Because it forces us to confront the inherent institutional racism that we would prefer to deny.

I'm of average intelligence, average abilities. I work fairly hard, but no harder than the average person. I was born into something resembling a middle class, and this is where I have mostly remained for most of my life, it's where my kids will statistically remain as well, and that's not a bad thing.

But when I come across a brown skinned person of similarly average intelligence, average abilities and average work ethic as I have, and they are working class minimum wage earners or even living in the same poverty in which they were born, then I have to confront a difficult-to-swallow reality ...  that they are where they are because they were born into it, and I am where I am because I was given some undeniable gifts as a child of my economic class!

We don't want to admit this! We want to tell ourselves that our lovely home and or sweet ass vehicle and our children's college educations are due to exceedingly hard work, grit, pluck and intelligence. We don't want to admit that we're just average schmucks who won the vagina lottery and happened to be born into a path that didn't beat us into the ground every damned day of our lives.

We LOVE the successful, wealthy Black person who came from poverty and has what we have, so we aren't strictly racist. We love that person because in that successful person's work ethic we see ourselves. But it's a lie that we tell ourselves. We didn't have to be the top 5% best like that Black person did to rise where we are, we just had to casually walk to our reward and accept it.

But that poor, broken person on poverty, that average schmuck like us, the great great great grandchild of a slave who still lives in poverty like their ancestor? We see that person, we see ourselves as we truly are, without the benefit of falling out of a middle class vagina, and we bristle with anger ... the truth can be difficult to accept.

And to accept that truth as a exceedingly wealthy President who hit the birth lottery with average abilities at best? Even more difficult to accept. But Chris Rock said it way better than I can ...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Just because your marriage is failing doesn't mean they all are.  Just saying.

My relationship of 20 years is just fine, thank you. We have managed to somehow survive the ridiculous state-sponsored scourge of "marriage" that seeks to infantalize grown ass adults to the point where they have to ask the government; "May I please spend my life with this other person? Pretty please?"

I believe in the sanctified commitment of fidelity, of a relationship of taking care of one another. But marriage? A bigger scam has yet to be foisted upon the planet by The Church than the artificial sanctity of "marriage" where two adults have to ask permission from The Church, and then from The State, to do what would otherwise come naturally. It's a crock of shit for more than half of its followers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Do you think the police have too much power?  Federal or state?  Which states?

Do you?  You brought up the example of the cop who turned off the body cam and lied about it.  Sounds like that guy had too much power.  But it was your example.  Just agreeing with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jzk said:

All kinds of rights violations occur.  The primary purpose of government is to protect the citizens against such.

You think libertarians are big fans of the police?

Pseudotarians love the police, because they own property and wealth.

When a pseudotarian doesn't own property and wealth then they are more accurately known as an "anarchist," and no.anarchists and poor people in general are not fans of the police.

Why? This is why ...

"You see, there are people who believe that the function of the police is to fight crime, and that's not true. The function of the police is social control and protection of property." -- Michael Parenti

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mikewof said:

My relationship of 20 years is just fine, thank you. We have managed to somehow survive the ridiculous state-sponsored scourge of "marriage" that seeks to infantalize grown ass adults to the point where they have to ask the government; "May I please spend my life with this other person? Pretty please?"

I believe in the sanctified commitment of fidelity, of a relationship of taking care of one another. But marriage? A bigger scam has yet to be foisted upon the planet by The Church than the artificial sanctity of "marriage" where two adults have to ask permission from The Church, and then from The State, to do what would otherwise come naturally. It's a crock of shit for more than half of its followers.

I think you're looking at it backwards. Commitment demanded is a commitment acknowledged. The personal bond of a wedded couple is stronger because of the public acknowledgement of it.

Let's say you are a physically fit young man, energetic and patriotic, and you're struck by the idea of becoming a soldier. How cool is that?

Great, get your gun and march around with a bunch of other armed young men. Maybe practice shooting at targets and camp out and other fun stuff. Then you get sent to the front in an actual war. Your buddies start spurting blood and screaming in pain and dying all around you. There's filth and fire and fear so thick that it's clotted in your hair and running into your eyes. You gonna dig an and make the enemy PAY, or are you gonna say "fuck this" and bail out?

Fortunately the military knows (and has known for many centuries) that with oaths and uniforms and rituals, the commitment to being a SOLDIER takes emotional root and soldiers who have been treated like this, and led by men who follow these social forms, will fight to the death and be proud of their glory (a relatively meaningless word, really).

A man and a woman who have been in a society that solemnizes the commitment to their own household, and children, and each other, will go thru a lot of aggravation and privation when they might otherwise say "fuck this, and BTW FUCK YOU!!" and bail out.

All that, plus the legal niceties of being sure that your union has a sort of corporate status recognized in law, that helps too.

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Pseudotarians love the police, because they own property and wealth.

When a pseudotarian doesn't own property and wealth then they are more accurately known as an "anarchist," and no.anarchists as not fans of the police.

Why? This is why ...

"You see, there are people who believe that the function of the police is to fight crime, and that's not true. The function of the police is social control and protection of property." -- Michael Parenti

 

I find that the police function mostly to tax the people through traffic violations.  And also to harass people over petty bullshit like drug possession.  

To get out of my parents neighborhood, the street buts up to a busy street coming from Villa Park.  As I was growing up, I would see countless people, (hundreds) pulled over by the police and sitting down on the ground in front of their car.  They most assuredly got pulled over on some pretend traffic violation pretext, and they convinced these people to let them search their vehicles.  I find this offensive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

Do you?  You brought up the example of the cop who turned off the body cam and lied about it.  Sounds like that guy had too much power.  But it was your example.  Just agreeing with you.

Which part is "too much power" - the power to shut off the bodycam, or the power to lie to people?

Link to post
Share on other sites