No one is talking about money. No one. And, frankly, even if we were, the majority has elected representatives to the highest echelons of government to purchase goods, services, and tax breaks that are not paid for. You all have elected government representatives that have racked up approximately $17 trillion in debt and you only bring in $2 trillion in revenue, why hem and haw about money now? Didn’t your former President and VP famously declare that “Deficits don’t matter” and you re-elected him again. Where was this fiscal prudence in 1981, 1984, 1986, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2012? Where was it? Huh? I want to know. I’m waiting on pins and needles. There is no reason why reparations cannot be paid for by the same mechanism you guys pay for your tax cuts your expensive insurance programs; indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (except if that gander is colored, clearly).
Bullshit. How many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations were put into law? How many recommendations from Clinton’s Syphilis/Tuskegee study were codified into law? Since 1986, the U.S Sentencing Commission has been pointing out the disparities in the War on Drugs and the LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH has not done shit since. So, please, magellan01, point to one commission, committee, inquiry that has poofed their recommendations into the force of law by circumventing the Executive and Legislative Branch.
Recommendations are recommendations. It’s like you think John Conyers is going to walk down from Mt. Sinai with recommendations etched in stone, thereby magically turning them into law. And what are you so scared of anyway? Your government cannot even run itself annually without shutting down and you think it would somehow get together for the benefit for 10% of the population? Please. Your government will shower the Ukranians with $1 billion in loan guarantees while leaving millions of Americans who lost their job at no fault of their own without unemployment benefits . Now that is a “transfer payment” if I ever saw one but carry on, nothing to see there.
This is true but the U.S government wilfully turned a blind eye. Going after the States would be a pointless exercise as most of the previous slave-holding States are impoverished. Hell, Mississippi ranks last in education in the U.S, I don’t think they have anything of value to offer except an apology (of which, I am sure they have not rendered, but would be happy to be proven wrong). The U.S government should have done more to protect the black* U.S citizens* within their borders, they failed and failed miserably, letting the States have free reign in implementing anti-minority policies.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
Bullshit. How many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations were put into law?
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m pretty sure the department of homeland security and patriot act, as well as a number of other things came out of commission recommendations. I’m not sure that this is your best example.
But it’s clear that the reason there hasn’t been a vote on this is that it would be political suicide, since reparations are indeed what is being angled for. Even if it’s not, it’s going to be the perception of what the end goal would be, and frankly very few politicians of either of the major parties is going to stick their necks out unless they are absolutely sure they have a lock on re-election, since they would be crucified by their opponents if they seemed to be going along with this. You can disagree with that if you like, but that’s the political reality. You can call bullshit on folks who are asserting that reparations are the end goal, and that this is simply a commission to look into whether slavery was bad and what it’s lasting effects are/were/will be into the future, but, again, it’s perception that is going to be the reality, and the public perception would be that this is about reparations…and the public isn’t going to go for that.
You said it yourself in the OP:
BOTH Democrats and Republicans refused to put it to a vote. When that’s the case, the answer is obvious…neither side thinks this issue would garner support from the voting public. Simple as that. You can accept that reality or be puzzled by it I suppose, but it speaks volumes in that fact alone.
You really believe a young black man or a young black women can be anything they want? You really believe slavery and Jim Crow would not change the their outcome? You think everything would’ve stayed the same?
Haha, I agree with you. Tell the majority to stop elevating the football players, the basketball players, and the rappers. There are hundred of thousands of black engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, and other professions that add great depth to this country but you (the majority) deign not to focus on them.
Oversimplification. The majority has strangled the education system to the point where it has to be privatized. If the majority deemed the education system worthy of funding (pegged to inflation), you’d see many people - including blacks - bringing their children back to public schools.
The American public overwhelmingly reject paying tribute to foreign countries, but unsurprisingly, the elected representatives continue to raise the amount of foreign aid year after year. There is no backlash - political or otherwise - from going against the voting public. I see no reason why HR 40 would be different.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
No one is talking about money. No one. And, frankly, even if we were, the majority has elected representatives to the highest echelons of government to purchase goods, services, and tax breaks that are not paid for. You all have elected government representatives that have racked up approximately $17 trillion in debt and you only bring in $2 trillion in revenue, why hem and haw about money now? Didn’t your former President and VP famously declare that “Deficits don’t matter” and you re-elected him again. Where was this fiscal prudence in 1981, 1984, 1986, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2012? Where was it? Huh? I want to know. I’m waiting on pins and needles. There is no reason why reparations cannot be paid for by the same mechanism you guys pay for your tax cuts your expensive insurance programs; indeed, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (except if that gander is colored, clearly).
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, not the best example, but it’s suitable enough to highlight just because a committee recommends something doesn’t necessarily lead to those recommendations magically appearing in the Federal Register. Not everything from the 9/11 Commission report was codified into law (See Border Control, National IDs, and immigration reform). I am sure there are a host of other recommendations either postponed or not adopted.
Edit: Better example would be the committee to study the 2008 crash of which very little has substantively changed since. We’re still waiting on that 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall recommended by the commission.
All I can say is wow, if you really, truly believe that there is no backlash from going against the voting public. But if you really believe that then it’s clear why you are puzzled as to the (political) reasons neither Democrats nor Republicans will bring this to a vote (and be on record on this subject).
That is an excellent example. The commission report was split down partisan lines, evenly and across the board:
(from your cite)
Yet, on the subject of your OP, neither Democrats NOR Republicans will even bring it to a vote. That, alone, should suggest the answer you are asking in your OP as to the why. Doesn’t mean it’s not something that should be studied, or that a debate on THAT wouldn’t be interesting, but obviously the politicians disagree with you (across the board) that there would be no backlash, nor that they could disregard such a backlash of the voting public if it did happen.
I just gave you an example: U.S tribute to other countries. Another one would be Clinton apologizing for slavery.
I have *no *problem with this as long as the study was performed and the report was published. Recommendations are recommendations, though the modern version of a Glass-Steagall act was a damn good recommendation. It’s a pity it has not been adopted.
It suggests political cowardice and a testament to weak political capital that blacks have in Congress. I am sure Clinton endured backlash for apologizing for slavery but he did it anyway - and what’s better is that he didn’t have to apologize for anything. IMO, by not studying the impact of slavery on African-Americans suggests the majority is petrified what that study could turn up. It’s likely to lay the “everyone can pull themselves from their bootstraps” meme to rest, permanently.
Sure. Identify the individuals, and have them make their case. But let’s not just assume that everyone in a nebulous group called “race” was equally affected.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
It suggests political cowardice and a testament to weak political capital that blacks have in Congress.
[/QUOTE]
Such as landmark votes on Civil Rights, yes? :dubious:
IIRC, it was late in his second term (I might be misremembering this), so cost him very little. Also, apologizing is very different than a pathway that leads to actual reparations, which is going to be the public perception of this from what I’ve seen.
You are right, Clinton didn’t have anything to apologize for…slavery and even Jim Crow were before his time. I’m fairly old, and it was before my time as well. Again, this isn’t to say that those things didn’t and still don’t have real world effects even today, because they do. And I think a commission to look into that could and would be worth while. But reparations would be touching a political 3rd rail, which is clearly what BOTH of the major parties believe such a commission would be headed for if you don’t see any support from either party.
I don’t think you understand what ‘tribute’ actually is…nor how the US in the early days contorted to appear, to the public, to not be paying even when we were so weak as to need to do so.
As for Clinton, I don’t see that as the same thing. Clinton’s base lapped up his apology, if I’m recalling correctly it was made during his second term when it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, and the majority of the howlage came from the right wing, which wasn’t going to vote for him regardless. So, it cost him nothing. Obviously this isn’t the same calculation that politicians in either of the major political parties are making on THIS subject, since as you noted neither will even bring this up for a vote…which means that they, at least, believe that doing so would be a negative to their continued public service from the majority of the voting public. Pretty much Q.E.D.
Don’t want to get into Glass–Steagall, which is the subject of another thread (and myriad threads in the past on this board), but anything that smacks of recommendations of reparations is something that, obviously, very few US politicians in either party want to touch. The fact that US politicians have voted for and supported Civil Rights as well as Same Sex Marriage and a host of other controversial positions but won’t touch this pretty much speaks for how THEY think the reaction of the majority of the voting public would be to just VOTING for this.
Possibly true, but it says something that neither side will even bring this to a vote…don’t you think?
No it’s not. Considering your arrogance in declaring your knowledge of economics, it’s kind of silly that you call it “that simple”. That doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate concerns – there certainly are. But it’s really, really not “simple”.
And these are good questions. Very good questions. These should be fully discussed before we go forward with any similar plan. I’m glad we agree that these are legitimate concerns. Thank you for your thoughtful addition.
I don’t think that can happen. You are, again, totally wrong about what I think. Try reading what I post, word for word, rather than just assuming that because I brought up a link (and subsequently voiced the existence of many legitimate concerns) that means I blindly support it.
Honestly Honesty, how do you have the gall to write this and hit the ‘Submit Reply’ button?
John Conyers bill discusses reparations.
The Article in the first line or your OP is titled “Ta-Nehisi Coats on Reparations”
And the original title of this thread IIRC had the word ‘reparations.’
How the F do you write that “No one” is talking about money??
Money is central to the reparations solution. Trying to somehow claim it isn’t, well, I’ll just say doesn’t help your argument and leave it at that.
How about this then. If Congress voted unanimously with the President in full concurrence that Slavery was without question the worst abomination in the history of this nation (and I’d say unequivocally that it was), but there were no financial reparations with it, would that be OK with you? If you can honestly answer yes, than you can argue that this isn’t about the money.
We know “reparations”, as an idea, are possible, because we did it with Japanese-American detainees. It didn’t break the bank, and it didn’t cause significant backlash. They deserved it, and it was good that we did it.
Reparations for repression and violence against black people would be a far larger undertaking, and would undoubtedly have many more concerns and ramifications. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, nor even that it would be harmful to the economy. Keynesian economics favors things like direct payments to citizens in some economic circumstances – depending on the particulars, reparations could even benefit the economy.
At the very least, compensation for past brutality is a reasonable discussion to have – and as we’ve seen with the WWII detainees, it’s one that we have had, successfully, before.
To the detainees themselves. Approximately 82,000 detainees or(not and) their direct descendents, at a total cost of 1.6 billion dollars-$20,000 each. Accurate records were kept of these detainees.
I’ll post more tomorrow.