Reparations

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
There's been a lot of talk about reparations, at least in California where the state has a panel studying the issue. Now after the Supreme Courts ruling on AA it's picking up even more. We have two articles about it in our local paper today.

We all know the adage 'as California goes so goes the nation'. We could see in that in two propositions voters approved in the state banning AA. Not surprising the Supreme Court followed suit. Now we'll see if California leads the way in giving reparations. We've seen the arguments supporting AA about racism and America's history etc. What would be any different in using those same arguments for reparations?

Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) shouldn't pay reparations?

(and as a side note, people are arguing loan forgiveness would be a stimulant for the economy - the same argument can be made about reparations)
 
cawacko said:
Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) shouldn't pay reparations?
Click to expand...
The better question is,
Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) should pay reparations?
I can’t imagine one.
 
First of all the panel already submitted their recommendations to the legislature who is currently drafting the bill.

Since the Governor is the one pushing for this and the fact that democrats have a supermajority it is guaranteed to pass.

The recommendation was that black residents who can prove a connection to slavery will receive up to 1.2 million in reparations.

Now here are the problems with it.

1. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce current racism in the state, in fact it will make it far worse.

2. Many blacks, most actually, cannot prove any connection to slavery meaning many will not receive anything yet they face the exact same discrimination that the other blacks do.

When a black family sees their neighbors getting a million dollars and they receive nothing you are looking at a recipe for disaster. The rage and riots will be intense.

3. All minority groups face some form of discrimination and have throughout our history so by giving preferential treatment to one select group is simply going to piss off the other groups.

4. California has an estimated budget of 300 million per year and this plan would cost 800 billion.

California does not have the money to pay for it which means that either they go bankrupt and the Fed has to bail them out or they drastically raise taxes which will force more people and businesses out of their state severely reducing their revenue.

5. The people who do receive reparations will more than likely blow through it within a year and although they may have a fancy new car they will essentially be in the exact situation they are currently in and they will demand more money on the basis that the reparations were not enough.

6. By paying reparations the state can say that racism and discrimination are no longer an issue because they made amends so that will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of civil rights legislation.

There is absolutely nothing positive about paying reparations other then to the politicians pushing this crap.
 
cawacko said:
There's been a lot of talk about reparations, at least in California where the state has a panel studying the issue. Now after the Supreme Courts ruling on AA it's picking up even more. We have two articles about it in our local paper today.

We all know the adage 'as California goes so goes the nation'. We could see in that in two propositions voters approved in the state banning AA. Not surprising the Supreme Court followed suit. Now we'll see if California leads the way in giving reparations. We've seen the arguments supporting AA about racism and America's history etc. What would be any different in using those same arguments for reparations?

Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) shouldn't pay reparations?

(and as a side note, people are arguing loan forgiveness would be a stimulant for the economy - the same argument can be made about reparations)
Click to expand...
Taking money from one group of people and giving it another group of people does not stimulate the economy.
 
anonymoose said:
The better question is,
Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) should pay reparations?
I can’t imagine one.
Click to expand...
My family arrived in NY in 1843. My great great grandfather and his brother fought for the North and my great great uncle was killed. My family arrived at a time when Irish were discriminated against. The Patriarch of the family and his wife died from typhoid soon after arriving in New York my great great great grandfather and his brother struggled to survive in Five Points. No one in my family has ever owned a slave. So remind me again why I should pay reparations. And while you are at it remind me why Kamala Harris who's family did own slaves should get reparations because I'm not seeing it.
 
Last edited:
On a interesting note I just saw where Pocahontas Warren's family wasn't Native American but did own several slaves. I wonder if she will claim that heritage. My guess is she won't. :laugh:
 
I’m more interested in the opinions of those who support AA. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to support AA and not reparations but for the sake of discussion I’m curious in hearing why people feel that way if you do. (again not in a gotcha type of way but rather not everyone thinks the same and can have differing opinions).
 
Tinkerpeach said:
First of all the panel already submitted their recommendations to the legislature who is currently drafting the bill.

Since the Governor is the one pushing for this and the fact that democrats have a supermajority it is guaranteed to pass.

The recommendation was that black residents who can prove a connection to slavery will receive up to 1.2 million in reparations.

Now here are the problems with it.

1. It will do absolutely nothing to reduce current racism in the state, in fact it will make it far worse.

2. Many blacks, most actually, cannot prove any connection to slavery meaning many will not receive anything yet they face the exact same discrimination that the other blacks do.

When a black family sees their neighbors getting a million dollars and they receive nothing you are looking at a recipe for disaster. The rage and riots will be intense.

3. All minority groups face some form of discrimination and have throughout our history so by giving preferential treatment to one select group is simply going to piss off the other groups.

4. California has an estimated budget of 300 million per year and this plan would cost 800 billion.

California does not have the money to pay for it which means that either they go bankrupt and the Fed has to bail them out or they drastically raise taxes which will force more people and businesses out of their state severely reducing their revenue.

5. The people who do receive reparations will more than likely blow through it within a year and although they may have a fancy new car they will essentially be in the exact situation they are currently in and they will demand more money on the basis that the reparations were not enough.

6. By paying reparations the state can say that racism and discrimination are no longer an issue because they made amends so that will dramatically reduce the effectiveness of civil rights legislation.

There is absolutely nothing positive about paying reparations other then to the politicians pushing this crap.
Click to expand...

The Melrose Plantation in Natchitoches Louisiana was owned by Marie Therese Coincoin. She was a former slave black woman that owned slaves. Since she has a connection to slavery so anyone related to her or her ten kids would qualify for reparations and anyone from my family that gave a life to prevent slavery would have to pay them.
 
Last edited:
ezgif-4-849e38ef9e-jpg.1318191
 
cawacko said:
There's been a lot of talk about reparations, at least in California where the state has a panel studying the issue. Now after the Supreme Courts ruling on AA it's picking up even more. We have two articles about it in our local paper today.

We all know the adage 'as California goes so goes the nation'. We could see in that in two propositions voters approved in the state banning AA. Not surprising the Supreme Court followed suit. Now we'll see if California leads the way in giving reparations. We've seen the arguments supporting AA about racism and America's history etc. What would be any different in using those same arguments for reparations?

Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) shouldn't pay reparations?

(and as a side note, people are arguing loan forgiveness would be a stimulant for the economy - the same argument can be made about reparations)
Click to expand...

State's Rights but I think throwing money at people for "social injustice" is wrong. If someone's property was illegally taken like the California beach or a store as was done to Japanese in WWII, then, yes, pay them their due or return the property.

Better to improve the schools in poor areas and incentivize businesses to build factories and train workers in such areas.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...signs-law-to-return-bruces-beach-black-family
Bruce’s Beach can return to descendants of Black family in landmark move signed by Newsom
In a history-making move celebrated by reparations advocates and social justice leaders across California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has authorized the return of property known as Bruce’s Beach to the descendants of a Black couple that had been run out of Manhattan Beach almost a century ago.
 
cawacko said:
There's been a lot of talk about reparations, at least in California where the state has a panel studying the issue. Now after the Supreme Courts ruling on AA it's picking up even more. We have two articles about it in our local paper today.

We all know the adage 'as California goes so goes the nation'. We could see in that in two propositions voters approved in the state banning AA. Not surprising the Supreme Court followed suit. Now we'll see if California leads the way in giving reparations. We've seen the arguments supporting AA about racism and America's history etc. What would be any different in using those same arguments for reparations?

Is there an argument to be made that the state (and later ultimately the country) shouldn't pay reparations?

(and as a side note, people are arguing loan forgiveness would be a stimulant for the economy - the same argument can be made about reparations)
Click to expand...

AA was never a form of reparations. It was intended to fight discrimination, especially in the democrat controlled gov't unions and gov't contracts. Let's remember the Dems controlled congress from 52 to 92, and the Senate for most of that time period.

While Cali. did vote against AA for the elite colleges, those elite colleges like Berkeley, ... circumvented the law by abolishing the use of SAT and ACT scores in college admissions.
 
I don't think people have thought this through......California pays reparations......everyone who might receive them moves to California......everyone who might have to pay them moves out.....the people who receive them now have the money to pay them......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't think people have thought this through......California pays reparations......everyone who might receive them moves to California......everyone who might have to pay them moves out.....the people who receive them now have the money to pay them......
Click to expand...

Makes total sense :rolleyes:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't think people have thought this through......California pays reparations......everyone who might receive them moves to California......everyone who might have to pay them moves out.....the people who receive them now have the money to pay them......
Click to expand...

It wouldn’t be a total free for all, my brother-in-law is black and for the most part grew up in California but he wouldn’t qualify. So there are limits on who would receive them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top