Here is my idea for reparations for slavery. We send busses to predominantly black neighborhoods everyday, at taxpayer expense. Those busses give all school age children in that neighborhood a free ride to a publicly funded school in that area. We provice, at taxpayer expense, teachers, books, classrooms, computers, all the components needed for a good education. We even provide lunch for them while they are there, at taxpayer expense of course. Anyone who attends for twelve years gets a certificate stating they are prepared for a descent job or can go on to college for an even better job. Anyone who doesn’t attend will, of course, have very little chance for a good job in life but will also have nothing to complain about.
Perhaps we should draw up a reparations list first before doling out the cash.
I think the Native Americans are much higher on the list than anyone else.
And about Social Security. It is generally believed that the more money that is in circulation, the healthier the economy is. Any financial doctorates out there can slap me for over simplifying this thought. But I hold it generally to be true.
This means that these people have more of their money floating around. It’s just a shame that they are not offered any type of retirement benefits through their employment. But would they partake in them even if they were offered such benefits? Where I work, it is a voluntary system, although I will become vested after five years of employment.
But it is a shame to think, “Hey, I’ll get Social Security when I’m old and need it, so I’ll spend like a sailor on leave now.” Social Security is not a net to rely on. It is also a shame that credit card debt is at an all time high. That just sucks the life out of people.
Regardless of what it means for their own personal security, does this mean that these people are strengthening the economy more than if they were actually saving?
In the same day, one day last week, on the local AM station KDKA, I heard two different interviews. The first was a Social Security expert. He said that currently 35 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to Social Security. This surprised the hell out of me. In its current form, as the bulge of Baby Boomers move into retirement age, this percentage will probably climb to somewhere in the 60 percent range. That is a percent, which doesn’t mean other programs will shrink. It means that our taxes will increase to meet this demand. Terrible. I already feel that I am paying too much in taxes.
The other interview was about why there is no such thing as the one job to support a family anymore. This gentleman blamed inflation and America’s current backwards thinking of spending versus saving. No more can you save money, because as time passes, that money loses value quicker than the interest that is gained from it.
Lonesomepolecat- Yep, your right, I sued the wrong term. “Chattel” is not what I meant, I meant “indentured servitude”. And your thoughts on that sunject are right on.
Apos- yes. I was agreeing with you in that “the people who commited the crime of slavery aren’t around anymore”. Nor are any slaves- AFAIK.
This thread can’t have two such radically different subjects. My brain hurts. 
CF- why don’t you close the SS one down here, and re-open it in another debate, with a link back to there?
Er? What? How does taking a dollar bill from me, and then handing it to you, make there be more money in circulation? Because that’s what reparations would involve.
You could argue that black people, being slightly poorer on average than white people would thus be more likely to spend money that they were given than the people who previously held it. But spending money is not a general proscription for economic sucess. It can be good, potentially, if you believe its a good Keynsian response to a recession. But it could also cause inflation in other situations. The bottom line is that all other things equal, you can’t magically make everyone richer just by shuffling goods and little pieces of paper around willy nilly.
I’m not an economics major, and my example was extremely simplistic in nature. I certainly hope some sort of financial expert would check in to set the record straight on exactly what makes an economy healthy.
But what I was referring to wasn’t transerring a small amount of money from one individual to another. It was more along the lines of a company receives more money because more people are buying their products or services. That company then, in turn, hires more people and funds some R&D projects, which leads to more products and services that more people buy, and so on.
But, it was also a little tongue in cheek, as well. Just floating an idea that I don’t believe in.