On slavery reparation payments.

[Grand Vol]

Agreed. Don't expect our resident reparation sympathizer to address you comment. He has failed to address any of my comments.

I put him on ignore. Only the second time I've done that in the PF.

I can debate him on points all day long, but the 12 year old girl font is killing me. I'm as pro-UT as they come, but Jesus Christ Lord and Holy, there comes a point where you just need to be plain.

 

[RobsPics]

Actually, I'd tend to think we need to go to the source of the slave trade for reparations. And that slave trade started...where?

If foreign countries develop a reparation plan, I would not argue against it. That is their right. Doesn't alter any culpability of the US Government.

 

[volprof]

If a good plan was drafted to invest in some large predominantly black neighborhoods by the govt. and by federal govt.-incentivized private businesses, then I would consider "reparations." Obviously, I'd have to hear a good plan, and it would have to be much better than The Great Society or any other govt.-led "investment" plan we've seen thus far for black Americans.

If, however, by "reparations," we mean checks, then absolutely not. Giving checks to random black Americans would accomplish very little and would probably only resemble something like the EBT program - quick spend, businesses don't mind, but nothing is really accomplished to better the situation in the end. It's highly unlikely that any group of Americans (not just blacks) would actually take their checks and make long-term investments, whether these be in markets, savings, education, neighborhood improvement, job creation, capital investment, etc.

I would also like to extend a smart initiative to the poor in general, not just black Americans. I guess what I'm asking for is a better, healthier welfare program en masse. Since this is unlikely to materialize, then it is unlikely I would ever consider giving the nod to black reparations, provided I was authorized to have a vote on the matter.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Except no living person is culpable for slavery.

Yes, and it tanks your argument.

I said if the US Government should have paid slaves, then that obligation still exists.

No, no it doesn't. In connection with the statement above, the statue of limitations has run its course for culpable persons.

Joinly, the government is made up of a collection of individuals. Those individuals which comprise the US government during slavery are not the individuals of the US government today; neither are the constituents who voted them into office.

This is why we have statue of limitations.

And yes I know I based this issue on intestacy. That's why I said any applicable statute of limitations would need to start running when a plan is enacted...not prior.

That would be a collector's statue of limitations; not a statue of limitations on culpable persons. You keep conflating the two. One gives standing for money to be taken, the other gives standing for money to be received.

 

[RobsPics]

Then we are back here again.

Well you specifically asked me, even though I already stated it prior.

 

[JVol76]

If foreign countries develop a reparation plan, I would not argue against it. That is their right. Doesn't alter any culpability of the US Government.

Why dont you get it through your head that the US government isn't culpable in this? My God, you are either hard headed or just downright dumb.

 

[SergeantVol]

Since Obama is the current President of the US Government, then he would be the one to approve any reparation plan developed through the legislature. Just like Ronald Reagan, as former President, approved a reparation plan developed through the legislature.

That doesn't answer my question. Since you say the US government is eternal and are culpable of supporting slavery, does that mean the current president is guilty of supporting slavery? According to your premise, the US government of today is guilty for what happened over 150 years ago and should pay reparations to the lineal descendants of slaves.

Furthermore, where do we draw the line at paying monetary damages? The US government throughout its history is guilty of neglect against many minorities. We denied admittance of Jewish refugees. They had no place to go to escape Hitler's final solution. Do we pay them? What about the way Irish immigrants were treated in the 1800s?

 

[RobsPics]

Yes, and it tanks your argument.

No, no it doesn't. In connection with the statement above, the statue of limitations has run its course for culpable persons.

Joinly, the government is made up of a collection of individuals. Those individuals which comprise the US government during slavery are not the individuals of the US government today; neither are the constituents who voted them into office.

This is why we have statue of limitations.

That would be a collector's statue of limitations; not a statue of limitations on culpable persons. You keep conflating the two. One gives standing for money to be taken, the other gives standing for money to be received.

I never said any person is culpable. So a statute of limitations on a culpable person is irrelevant. But if the Government implemented a reparation plan today, for monies it should have paid prior, the the statute of limitations to collect would start running once the plan is enacted, not prior.

 

[RobsPics]

Why dont you get it through your head that the US government isn't culpable in this? My God, you are either hard headed or just downright dumb.

Because I don't agree with you, that's why

 

[SergeantVol]

Heck the failure of the US government to properly invest in infrastructure in Appalachia has led to chronic poverty. Should the US Government pay reparations to all Appalachian Americans?

 

[RobsPics]

That doesn't answer my question. Since you say the US government is eternal and are culpable of supporting slavery, does that mean the current president is guilty of supporting slavery? According to your premise, the US government of today is guilty for what happened over 150 years ago and should pay reparations to the lineal descendants of slaves.

No Obama is not personally responsible for slavery just like Ronald Reagan was not personally responsible for Japanese internment camps. Lack of personal responsibility for those actions does not preclude Government reparation payments for those actions...as evinced by Reagan's authorizations.

Furthermore, where do we draw the line at paying monetary damages? The US government throughout its history is guilty of neglect against many minorities. We denied admittance of Jewish refugees. They had no place to go to escape Hitler's final solution. Do we pay them? What about the way Irish immigrants were treated in the 1800s?

Those could all be avenues possibly worth exploring. I never said those issues should be ignored.

 

[JVol76]

Because I don't agree with you, that's why

Agree or not explain to me why my tax dollars should go to paying reparations? Neither I nor my family was involved in slavery so why am I or millions like me responsible? For the umpteenth time, if you are so bothered by the ancestors of slaves not getting paid then feel free to do it out of your own pocket. Find others who agree with you and get it done. The rest of us have enough to pay for without adding this b.s. to it.

 

[RobsPics]

Heck the failure of the US government to properly invest in infrastructure in Appalachia has led to chronic poverty. Should the US Government pay reparations to all Appalachian Americans?

Not analogous because refraining from action (lack of funding) is not the same as an overt act ("renting" slaves, passing slave fugitive laws).

 

[VolStrom]

This has to be a class project of some UT professor. Some study group gathered around a computer with a VolNation member's seldomly used credentials stirring the pot during an election year bringing up an insane question.

Psychology class, African-American history month exercise, law school class? Who knows?

 

[RobsPics]

Agree or not explain to me why my tax dollars should go to paying reparations? Neither I nor my family was involved in slavery so why am I or millions like me responsible? For the umpteenth time, if you are so bothered by the ancestors of slaves not getting paid then feel free to do it out of your own pocket. Find others who agree with you and get it done. The rest of us have enough to pay for without adding this b.s. to it.

I never said that reparations should in-fact be enacted. I said that *IF* the US Government should have paid the slaves back then, but failed to do so, then the appropriate recipient today is the living heir of the slave.

And if the government should have paid out back then, the money would have come out of the general tax fund...even if there were tax payers who had nothing to do with slavery. So if the money is paid out now, it still is funded by tax payers who had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[SergeantVol]

No Obama is not personally responsible for slavery just like Ronald Reagan was not personally responsible for Japanese internment camps. Lack of personal responsibility for those actions does not preclude Government reparation payments for those actions...as evinced by Reagan's authorizations.




Those could all be avenues possibly worth exploring. I never said those issues should be ignored.

I personally think reparations are bull. Regardless of what happened in the past, the descendants of slaves and other minorities live here now. They have rights guaranteed to them that other countries do not have. That is recompense enough. People have literally died to come to this country to have an equal opportunity to be successful (especially when we used to have immigration quotas). Apparently you forget how great this country is becaused you are weighed down with guilt for somethimg someone else did. Monetary based reparations will only breed a sense of entitlement.

The situation in the origin countries for a lot of slaves (the Irish and many other; not just Africans) is a lot worse then here. Periods of extreme famine, heavy handed dictators and genocide by rival factions.

 

[SergeantVol]

Not analogous because refraining from action (lack of funding) is not the same as an overt act ("renting" slaves, passing slave fugitive laws).

Inaction to take care of an electorate is dereliction of duty. It is even worse then the overt acts that you claim. It is along the same logic. Failure of the government to take care of a segment of a population. The semantics of the lack of legislation and approval of legislation are inconsequential.

 

[SergeantVol]

Furthermore, government actions that proved to be harmful should result in mometary damages. Every family time apart by the War on Drugs should be paid damages. Legality of actions by the accused wouldn't be considered.

 

[RobsPics]

I personally think reparations are bull. Regardless of what happened in the past, the descendants of slaves and other minorities live here now. They have rights guaranteed to them that other countries do not have. That is recompense enough. People have literally died to come to this country to have an equal opportunity to be successful (especially when we used to have immigration quotas). Apparently you forget how great this country is becaused you are weighed down with guilt for somethimg someone else did. Monetary based reparations will only breed a sense of entitlement.

The situation in the origin countries for a lot of slaves (the Irish and many other; not just Africans) is a lot worse then here. Periods of extreme famine, heavy handed dictators and genocide by rival factions.

I agree that it is a net positive to live in America. I am just saying an heir is rightfully owed whatever money a descendant should have been paid. So if the Us Government should have paid a slave directly, but failed to do so, the heir should be able to collect. It has nothing to do with the wealth/advantages of the living heir. Wealthy heirs are still entitled to whatever monies due to them through intestacy.

 

[RobsPics]

Inaction to take care of an electorate is dereliction of duty. It is even worse then the overt acts that you claim. It is along the same logic. Failure of the government to take care of a segment of a population. The semantics of the lack of legislation and approval of legislation are inconsequential.

Well if the Federal government overtly injured the peoples you speak of, that too might be a reparation avenue to explore.

 

[JVol76]

I never said that reparations should in-fact be enacted. I said that *IF* the US Government should have paid the slaves back then, but failed to do so, then the appropriate recipient today is the living heir of the slave.

And if the government should have paid out back then, the money would have come out of the general tax fund...even if there were tax payers who had nothing to do with slavery. So if the money is paid out now, it still is funded by tax payers who had nothing to do with slavery.

Should the government also pay descendants of southerners
in the 1800's who suffered because of the tariffs of the US government? The south was responsible for two thirds of exports and were saddled with two thirds of the retaliatory tariffs from abroad. People in the south were paying three times their share of the goverment's costs. How about we just call it even? I won't pay reparations and I won't demand compensation for the hardships levied onto my ancestors from the government.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I never said any person is culpable.

Which is why your case is dead.

So a statute of limitations on a culpable person is irrelevant.

No, it's quite relevant. Crushes your argument.

But if the Government implemented a reparation plan today, for monies it should have paid prior, the the statute of limitations to collect would start running once the plan is enacted, not prior.

That is the collector's statue of limitations. That's not the issue.

The issue is getting to reparations. It requires culpable persons, statue of limitations for culpable persons, extant assets for those with standing (slaves) for intestacy, etc., which all kill your case for enacting reparations.

 

[RobsPics]

Furthermore, government actions that proved to be harmful should result in mometary damages. Every family time apart by the War on Drugs should be paid damages. Legality of actions by the accused wouldn't be considered.

I agree that unjust injury done through the war on drugs is another compensation possibility to explore.. If someone was sentenced to disproportionate amount of time, compensation might be due.

 

[nevol98]

Reparations: Translation - "I'm black...give me free money" None of these people were alive prior to the Civil War. They were not slaves...neither were there parents or grandparents. How much longer do we have to listen to this nonsense. ?

 

[RobsPics]

Which is why your case is dead.

No, it's quite relevant. Crushes your argument.

That is the collector's statue of limitations. That's not the issue.

The issue is getting to reparations. It requires culpable persons, statue of limitations for culpable persons, extant assets for those with standing (slaves) for intestacy, etc., which all kill your case for enacting reparations.

Reparations do not require culpable persons to be still living. it just requires a culpable government still in existence.