NRO's Kirsanow and Hanson falsely claimed Obama has not given his views on reparations
SUMMARY: In separate blog posts on National Review Online, Peter Kirsanow and Victor Davis Hanson each falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama has not further explained what he meant when he stated at the UNITY '08 Convention: "I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds." Later in his remarks, Obama said: "I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed."
In recent days, National Review Online contributors Peter Kirsanow and Victor Davis Hanson have each falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama has not further explained what he meant when he stated at the UNITY '08 Convention on July 27: "I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds." In separate posts on the NRO blog The Corner, Kirsanow and Hanson speculated about whether the remark in question amounted to an endorsement by Obama of "cash" payments as reparations for slavery, without reporting what Obama said in full at the UNITY Convention about his position on reparations. As Media Matters for America has documented, when CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux asked Obama moments after his initial remark whether he supported "offering reparations to various groups," Obama replied: "I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy." Indeed, as Media Matters documented, Obama has made similar comments "in the past" when asked about the issue of reparations.
In an August 5 NRO post, Kirsanow wrote: "Members of the press haven't asked Sen. Obama to explain what he means by saying that the U.S. government should offer deeds regarding reparations." He then asserted:
A charitable guess is that Sen. Obama wants more money to be spent on improving education, health care, alleviating poverty, etc. That is, more government programs.
But that's the point -- it's just a guess. Many people think of reparations in terms of cash pay-outs, and not insubstantial ones at that. For example, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations has estimated the total value of reparations to blacks at $8 trillion. Others have put the annual price tag at $100 billion. What's Sen. Obama's price tag for the "deeds" the U.S. government should offer? What form should the deeds take? Do they include cash transfers?
In a July 30 NRO post, Hanson wrote: "If the press insists on hinging on every word of Obama, can't they at least ask for clarifications and details about his sweeping proclamations?" After quoting Obama's initial reference to reparations during his July 27 remarks at the UNITY Convention, Hanson added:
Again more details: Does this mean an expansion of affirmative action, more of WWII taught as mostly Rosie the Riveter, Hiroshima, and the Japanese internment, or cash grants for past sins? Does the explicit reference to reparations mean they are here at last -- which were on the front burner pre-9/11? Anyone in any government-supported university the last thirty years knows that admission policies, graduate and professional school recruitment, assigned readings, curriculum, minority hiring and promotion, and university polices do not "just offer words, but offer deeds".
Neither Kirsanow nor Hanson mentioned that Obama said that "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed."
After Media Matters documented that Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely suggested on July 30 that Obama's initial reference to reparations at the UNITY '08 Convention "seem[ed] to be something of an endorsement of the idea of 'reparations for slavery,' which is usually taken to mean cash payments," Taranto wrote on August 1: "Contrary to our speculation in a Wednesday item, it appears that Barack Obama is not a reparationist. DemocracyNow.org has a transcript of Obama's question-and-answer session with minority journalists, which provides some context for the comment we highlighted."
From Obama's July 27 question-and-answer session at the UNITY '08 Convention:
BULL: Senator, I am Brian Bull from Wisconsin Public Radio and the Native American Journalists Association. Last February, the Australian prime minister apologized for the past treatment of its indigenous people. Last month, the Canadian prime minister also issued an apology for its treatment of its indigenous population. Would your administration issue an apology to Native Americans for the atrocities they've endured for the past 500 years?
OBAMA: You know, I personally would want to see our tragic history or the tragic elements of our history acknowledged. And I think that there's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans, as well as other persons of color in this country, that we've got some, some very sad and difficult things to account for.
What an official apology would look like, how it would be shaped, that's something that I would want to consult with Native Americans tribes and councils to talk about. And because obviously, as sovereign nations, they also have a whole host of other issues that they're concerned about and that they've prioritized. One of the things that I said to tribal leaders is, I want to set up a annual meeting with them and make sure that a whole range of these issues are addressed.
But I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds. And when you look at the situation on tribal lands, the fact that by every socioeconomic indicator Native Americans are doing worse than any other population on health, on education, on substance abuse -- their housing situations are deplorable, unemployment is skyrocketing -- you know, I have to confess that I'm more concerned about delivering a better life and creating a better relationship with the Native American peoples than anything else. And that's what I want to engage tribal leaders in making sure happens.
MALVEAUX: When it comes to reparations, would you take it a step further, in terms of apologizing for slavery or offering reparations to various groups?
OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy.
You know, the fact is, is that dealing with some of the, some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation, unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen. And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about how do we get every child to learn, how do we get every person health care, how do we make sure that everybody has a job, how do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect. And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.
From Kirsanow's August 5 post:
Sen. Obama's comments earlier last week concerning reparations were swamped by the attention devoted to the "dollar bill" controversy. Nonetheless, the comments deserve at least as much scrutiny.
Speaking to a crowd of minority journalists at the Unity '08 conference, Obama responded to a question about reparations as follows:
I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.
Members of the press haven't asked Sen. Obama to explain what he means by saying that the U.S. government should offer deeds regarding reparations. A charitable guess is that Sen. Obama wants more money to be spent on improving education, health care, alleviating poverty, etc. That is, more government programs.
But that's the point -- it's just a guess. Many people think of reparations in terms of cash pay-outs, and not insubstantial ones at that. For example, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations has estimated the total value of reparations to blacks at $8 trillion. Others have put the annual price tag at $100 billion. What's Sen. Obama's price tag for the "deeds" the U.S. government should offer? What form should the deeds take? Do they include cash transfers?
From Hanson's July 30 post:
If the press insists on hinging on every word of Obama, can't they at least ask for clarifications and details about his sweeping proclamations? Most are still waiting for the particulars of his idea to create a shadow Pentagon of civilian aid and civil support workers funded to the same tune of $500 billion a year. That seems a big deal that the electorate should ponder? How would it function? Where would the funding come from? What would be the relationship with the Pentagon?
And now what does the following mean from Obama:
I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged. I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.
Again more details: Does this mean an expansion of affirmative action, more of WWII taught as mostly Rosie the Riveter, Hiroshima, and the Japanese internment, or cash grants for past sins? Does the explicit reference to reparations mean they are here at last -- which were on the front burner pre-9/11? Anyone in any government-supported university the last thirty years knows that admission policies, graduate and professional school recruitment, assigned readings, curriculum, minority hiring and promotion, and university polices do not "just offer words, but offer deeds". It would seem that the Obamas' own careers, in retrospect, have been helped a lot by "deeds" rather the mere rhetoric of the government.
Two themes seem to reoccur: one, sweeping rhetorical promises that either are not or cannot be backed by detailed proposals; two, a certain sort of resentment that after trillions of dollars invested in affirmative action, war on poverty programs, and government assistance targeted to the poor and minorities they can be summed up with a mere "not just offer words."
Thanks MMFA for proving once again that Obama is a socialist. He doesn't believe in equal opportunity, he believes in equal outcome.
Obama - I'm much more interested in talking about how do we get every child to learn, how do we get every person health care, how do we make sure that everybody has a job, how do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect. And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can'And thanks to you, AA, for proving once again that you're a mindless dittohead idiot.
If he looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, he is a duck.
Looks like some of you are ducking the fact that Obama quacks socialist proposals almost daily.
Thanks MMFA for proving once again that Obama is a socialist. He doesn't believe in equal opportunity, he believes in equal outcome.
Not one O' quote you cited here established your case. But I know-- so what, right?
What do you mean by equal outcome, AA? That everyone makes the same income, regardless of effort or position?
The point is the government does not "owe" anyone a healthy and productive life, what they "owe" us is to remove barriers and allow the opportunity for each and every person to pursue healthy and productive lives. - tommy
But aren't out of reach costs for health care and higher education not barriers?
I guess the solution is student loans and the emergency room.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is guaranteed a college education.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is promised health care.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is promised retirement.
Are there high costs associated with all of these issues. Hell yes. The problem with big government solutions is that they take away personal accountability and transfer the costs to the middle class to pay for the poor, who, in many cases, made conscious decisions that made them poor.
I'm all for safety nets, but promising socialist solutions is not the best way to go. For one thing, we as a country, cannot afford it. Look at the deficit now. It will only get bigger as the government adds more social programs like universal health care and subsidized college education and further increases in Social Security payouts.
Dem,
You too are describing socialism.
You are selfish and too dense to understand that the everyone in the country thrives when the lowest and most disenfranchised among us has an honest chance at success.
But you prefer that the poor stay that way because you've already got yours and they can just go screw themselves.
You're not Another American, you're Un-American.
Fog,
Having fun up there rocking on the high horse?
Simply read what I wrote rather than make up stuff that I never advocated nor support.
Absolutely not.......... Socialism is An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system ...
Providing universal healthcare and college education are mutually exclusive from America's means of production. Giving the common person equal footing to contribute to the basic means of production would only increase America's levels of production, purchasing power, value of the dollar and make us a stronger country. I don't see any negatives with this.
Cripes, even the UAE (an Arab country) has free college education for its citizens. We can't at least equal that? Pathetic. - Dem
You know, even Cosat Rica has free post-secodary education. Apparently at least partially paid for by disbanding their military...
Well, that was CR's choice. I don't see anybody threatening to invade CR anytime soon. The American public has to determine their priorities. Where there's a will there's a way.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is guaranteed a college education.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is promised health care.
Show me in the Constitution where everyone is promised retirement.
Ummm, I didn't say anything about the constitution or retirement
Are there high costs associated with all of these issues. Hell yes. The problem with big government solutions is that they take away personal accountability and transfer the costs to the middle class to pay for the poor, who, in many cases, made conscious decisions that made them poor.
The children of parents that decided to be poor (I like that one) should suffer because the parents made that decision? I thought the US presented itself as a meritocracy.
I'm all for safety nets, but promising socialist solutions is not the best way to go. For one thing, we as a country, cannot afford it. Look at the deficit now. It will only get bigger as the government adds more social programs like universal health care and subsidized college education and further increases in Social Security payouts.
But you can afford Iraq. OK then. And why the knee jerk reaction to something that is "socialist"? Should the merit of a proposal be based on it's preformance?
OB,
It is not a knee jerk reaction. Socialism and socialistic policies by the government lead to waste, inefficiency and are contrary to the Constitution. The government has usurped power not granted to it and is forcibly taking money from some people to give it to others.
I'm not for helping the poor. I help the poor by giving to charities and even have set up and fund a scholarship for local highschool graduates. As I said earlier, I'm not against safety nets provided by the government. I am against the government going beyond the safety net and mandating that everyone has to give their money to others simply because those others don't make much.
We are half way to socialism right now according to some studies where approximately half our income goes to taxes and government dictated programs and measures.
The government forcibly taking money from the productive elements of society hurt the poor in the long run because they slow down the economy and prevent the rising tide of economic growth which lifts everyone.
Our poor in here in the United States, live better than Kings of Europe 200 years ago. They enjoy longer life, more varieties of healthy food, better medical care, better transportation, better education, and better entertainment than the richest people in the world in the 1700s. Nobody is starving to death in the United States, (except Terri Schaivo.)
Lets work on reducing costs for healthcare, education, and retirement rather than simply forcing the shrinking workforce to pay more and more each year to fund inefficient programs that waste billions on programs that are stepping stones to socialism.
What you fail to understand is that socialism is not the concept of people contributing to meet the needs of everyone itself. Socialism is the overextension of that principle, to where it crosses over into things that are not matters of natural societal interest. Fire departments, police, paved roads, these things do not define "socialist" philosophy, even though the principle is the same. There's a public need there, so there's no problem with government providing for it.
Can you please be more specific in how this is unconstitutional? What powers are being misappropriated here, exactly?
I am against the government going beyond the safety net and mandating that everyone has to give their money to others simply because those others don't make much.
Who paid for your college? You paid for each and every expense of it?
Who supported your relatives when they got old?
Hypocrite.
Our poor in here in the United States, live better than Kings of Europe 200 years ago. They enjoy longer life, more varieties of healthy food, better medical care, better transportation, better education, and better entertainment than the richest people in the world in the 1700s. Nobody is starving to death in the United States, (except Terri Schaivo.) aa
What a bizzare post. But I'll just pick this one paragraph and say - "so?"
The elites today have more than the robber barons ever dreamed of. But it's good that poor aren't really poor and we should all just toss some money to a charity. Thanks.
who, in many cases, made conscious decisions that made them poor.
Cite one, jerk.
So how is that inconsistent with what Obama said, or what I said for that matter? Aren't things like poor education and health issues "barriers"?
I thought "reparations" was code for "cold hard cash".
No, actually in the righties book, "reparations" is code for 'don't forget, Obama is a scary negro...'
Aren't things like poor education and health issues "barriers"?
And don't they fall under the "promote the general welfare" clause of the Constitution's preamble?
And I would argue that it does. There are some things that are just plain more practical when the government does them.
Tell me, AA - have you driven on an Interstate Highway lately? Do you consider its construction to be "socialist"?
The interstate highway system is a great example of how government should work. It is paid for with gasoline taxes and therefore proportionately by those who choose to use it. If only all of government could work so well.
Close but no cigar. If you live in a rural area where there are no Interstate highways, you can do all your driving on secondary roads and the gas taxes you pay still go to pay for roads you never use.
wz,
Building the roads is not socialistic. Subsidizing transportation is.
OB,
Is printing money the same as giving it to the poor?
Providing roads does not mean the government gives the poor cars and gasoline so they can use those roads. However the government does subsidize public transportation.
Also, if you recall, the freeways were originally built as a security and defense measure in order to move troops from one part of the country to the other.
Roads also provided a route (no pun intended) to bring goods to market, helping the economy.
But isn't government interference with the market a bad bad thing according to you people? Shouldn't we be leaving it up to the system of free enterprise to see the need for a transportation system and wait for it to fill that need?
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
And yet that is what you propose for solving the problems of American health care.
"We should be sure to keep a bunch of people in sickness and unemployment just so we're not perceived as "socialists"
It isn't that inconsistent with what Obama said, however what you said above is a little ridiculous, which was where my point was directed.
Did you not grasp the context of the remark, which was AA's assertion that access to education and healthcare was "equal outcome"? Obviously the alternative of that goal is to keep people in sickness and out of work.
So you think what you said is largely consistent with what Obama said. AA thinks what Obama said makes him a socialist. I'm mocking what AA said. So I'm not sure how you can have a major disagreement with my post.
If you think you're being reasonable in assuming that AA wants "to keep a bunch of people in sickness and unemployment just so we're not perceived as "socialists".........then any elaboration is futile.
"We should be sure to keep a bunch of people in sickness and unemployment just so we're not perceived as "socialists"."
That's not saying it's something he's thrilled about, it's saying that he thinks it's something we have to do to avoid being perceived as "socialists".
So he's not "thrilled" about keeping people sick, he just likes a little?
I didn't use the word "wants" (nor "owe" which was in quotes in your original response for some reason). His post clearly made a choice that defines people's welfare as less important than our appearance as absolute capitalists. I have no idea what he likes or wants, I'm just pointing out the nature of his comment.
Got anything else?
I never said we should keep people sick or uneducated. I prefer free market approaches to each as opposed to socialistic programs that include government coerced taxes and government mandated equality of outcome. (i.e. everyone gets a college education.)
Its been proven time and again from the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, that many of those well meaning programs are inefficient and waste money.
As an example: Washington, D.C. spends more per capita on education students than any other city in the Nation. What do they have to show for it? You and I are paying for their failures through the government subsidies that we fund by paying our taxes. Everybody in education in Washington D.C. no doubt is well meaning. The problem is that certain government social/educational programs simply do not work. Poor parents are trapped because they cannot afford to take their children out of these so called schools. Provide vouchers for the parents and let them decide which schools to send their children. The free market would help fix that problem. Parents who value education for their children would again have a say in their child's education.
And just how much would these vouchers be for? Have you checked out the tuition at these "better schools"? What would your cut-off point be? How are going to afford that price tag.
What you people tend to forget is that the Government is us. It isn't the Government taking care of the less fortunate, it is us taking care of all of us.
What the hell are you talking about? This isn't about the quality of the services provided, it's about the total lack thereof. Many people have no health care at all. Many people can't afford to go to college at all. They get nothing in those areas.
The obvious problem with our health care system is that it's based on a conflict of interest. Either it's about profit, or it's about people's health. You can't maximize both things at once. So things like that are not conducive to the free market like manufacturing tires or whatever, where there are no directly conflicting goals. Companies don't have to provide these benefits, it costs them money, and so the drive for short-term profit discourages them from providing it. Meanwhile, that same drive for profits makes it prohibitive for many people to get it on their own. The same sort of principle applies to schools, the more cuts a school makes, the larger the classes, the more profit it makes. You can't maximize education and profits at the same time either. A citation of a public system in need of an overhaul doesn't change that fact one iota.
I know you didn't say that we should keep people sick and uneducated, but if we rely on people who are just as concerned with the bottom line as they are with health and education, those needs will never be met. That affects people's lives dramatically, all for the sake of not appearing "socialist".
And there is the demonstration of one of the many flaws of conservative doctrine: If a government program is ineffecient it should be abandoned, not fixed, even if it is through the conscious action of conservatives within the government that have caused the failure of that program (Bush's FEMA, the Medicaid/Care prescription program, etc.).
The point is the government does not "owe" anyone a healthy and productive life, what they "owe" us is to remove barriers and allow the opportunity for each and every person to pursue healthy and productive lives.
- tommy /
Let every unequal opportunity flower! What a country!!
Carn, it's a wingnut chestnut, which sounds like two types of nut, but is actually one. I've usually heard it applied to taxes, based on some imaginary tax plan that a mythical "leftist" is proposing, that leaves every American, from the billionaire to the homeless wino, with the same amount of post-tax money.
Like most righty propaganda (and consequently, like just about anything AA posts here), it makes no sense and has nothing to do with the reality-based community.
AA,
one of the ways the govt. can promote the general welfare is by directly providing services to everyone. It doesn't always have to be the case though.
Tommy,
Brabantio's "ridiculous" statement aside, he also asked you this: Aren't things like poor education and health issues "barriers"?
If, as you said, one of the things the govt. owes us is the removal of barriers and promoting equal opportunity, what do you think it should do regarding things like healthcare and education?
I am for allowing those who work hard, keep their grades up, and have a desire for higher education access to it, even if they can't afford it. Nobody should be denied an education just because they can't afford it.
As for healthcare, I am not for universal care. I am open to listening to various proposals from the candidates however.
As for healthcare, I am not for universal care. I am open to listening to various proposals from the candidates however.
I hear Obama's proposal in lowering health care demand is by proposing we all eat an apple a day while checking our tire pressures. :-)
Government is not here to fix every social problem
How about just three Tommy - education, health care, and social security. Got any problem with those? Isn't an educated and healthy workforce with some guaranteed retirement good for the country? Or is that socialism?
Fog,
Yes those three social programs are creeping toward socialism. Obama wants to take giant steps toward it.
but turning it over to government is not my idea of fixing anything
Medicaid has relatively low operating costs. Do you prefer HMO profits over people's lives? Taking away the profit motive will trump any real or perceived government mismanagement.
Remember, approx. 20,000 people die every year due to the lack of BASIC medical care.
Medicare seems to operate just fine and that's govt run; that was until Bush gave billions to the pharmaceuticals with his prescription drug plan.
Yeah, we wouldn't want the govt giving bailouts to failing industries like banking with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why do Repos want to bail out Big Business, but not give a hand to the common person? Talk about socialist programs!
Dem,
You are getting your terms mixed up. Whether I like it or not, the government bailouts were instituted to head off a run on banks and the resulting losses in the stock market. The reasoning is that it saved billions of dollars in investments from declining in value, preventing a sharp loss in the stock market and other markets. Saving Wall Street helped save eventual layoffs on Main Street.
So you concede the point that there are situations in which government intervention is necessary in order to serve the greater good of the nation.
Dirty socialist.
"Government is not here to fix every social problem and level the playing field for everyone"
I think that's what I pay my taxes for. Can you cite a social problem my tax dollars should not be trying to fix?
What is your definition of "rich"? What is your definition of "adequate health care"?
Socialism -
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialismSo what are you considering education and health care, means of production or goods and services?
Personally I'm considering them things that if provided to the citizenry of our nation as a whole would make us stronger, more productive and more competitive in the global market.
But feel free to stick with your feudalistic model, that should work out just great.
Nice rant but economically speaking you are only expressing something akin to 2 + 2 = apple. it did not add up.
Compound that with an off the wall reference to feudalism which only confirms to me the fact you do not know what you are talking about.
Do you know how silly it looks to respond to a relatively short post with "nice rant"?
"So what are you considering education and health care, means of production or goods and services? Personally I'm considering them things that if provided to the citizenry of our nation as a whole would make us stronger, more productive and more competitive in the global market."
I don't see what's unreasonable about that, so dismissing it as "2 + 2 = apple" seems to be you just sticking your head in the sand. Why not address it honestly, or at least specifically explain what's wrong with that "economically"?
You are the one claiming that supporting government health plans and educational services is some form of socialism. That's the 2+2=apple bit right there. If you must continue insisting that any and all form of government involvement in social welfare is big bad socialism/Marxism then I see no difference in making a hyperbolic statement that you are a fervent supporter of a feudalistic system.
The difference is that I know I am exaggerating things.
Reparations are not owed anyone. Those living today do not owe for past deeds of those long dead.
Affordable health care, education, & a strong economy that will generate jobs should be our goal, but not some big government handout to a select segment of the population.
Good schools, whether located in the inner city, rural areas, or suburbs should be our goal. Skin color or ethnic background should not determine this goal.
Student loans should continue to be provided for those that cannot afford the high college tuitions. Loans, not free handouts. Skin color or ethnic background should not determine financial need.
Jobs cannot be created by government. Government can reduce taxes on businesses that in turn will be able to afford to hire more workers. Skin color or ethnic background should not determine who is employed.
Private Health care insurance should offer a variety of plans that will meet both minimum coverage as well as more extensive coverage & everything in-between. Cost should match each tier. For those still struggling to afford even the least costly plans, tax credits/breaks could be given to help towards that effort. Skin color or ethnic background should not determine the insurance plan one opts for or receives.
"Reparations are not owed anyone. Those living today do not owe for past deeds of those long dead"
Well said Jeter, and I totally agree. But brace yourself, I was called a seething racist by you know who, for that very sentiment awhile back. :)
Ha! I know Tommy, I know. Believe me I thought of you know who when I clicked on post. My guess is that very few folks read my post or there might have been a trail of nasty responses.
I figure our friend you know who has buried himself on a beach somewhere ;-)
First, Obama is clearly not in favor of what is traditionally meant by "reparations," that is, cash payouts. Secondly, as he goes on to discuss programs to help improve health care, education and poverty in this country he doesn't say that those programs should target minorities, but that they will end up benefitting them in a greater proportion than white Americans because of simple statistics.
I was talking more in general about reparations, but you're correct in pointing out that Obama is not suggesting that minorities be targeted, but would likely receive the larger percentage of benefits because of statistics. I did overlook mentioning that my post did not address what Obama said.
My only objection to what he said, was that he seem to be concerned with only inner city schools. All schools, no matter where they are located should all meet the same standards. High ones.
I'm a conservative that used to be active on the MMfA forums. Due to time constraints, I stopped posting just about the time you started. I had many bouts with Sue and Scott Johnson, and I loved the way you kicked Scott's butt on the whole "Sue had a stroke and how dare you criticize her!" story. He never posted again (he may have been banned due to the language he used)! I agree that Bottleblonde is Sue, BTW.
Anyhoo-- now that I have established my conservative cred, I just wanted to say that I disagree with you on this one. Have a look at the book "Slavery by Another Name." It makes the case (very convincingly, I think) that there was plenty of actual slavery of blacks in this country until WWII. When you consider the brutality of Jim Crow that lasted into the '60's, I don't think it's true that reparations would be made for actions of the distant past.
I believe that white people have royally screwed black people in this country, and that we (I am white) owe blacks reparations (and big time). So I definitely support the concept of reparations. For example, one way to do it would be that any black person of any age can receive any education (from grade school to a Ph.D.) for free. What about mixed race people? How 'bout we use the standards of Jim Crow-- one drop of black blood=free education? How long should this free education last? I'd say the next three hundred years-- same amount of time as slavery and Jim Crow lasted in the U.S.
I know there would be several implementation issues such as diploma mills that would try to take advantage by signing up blacks for the tuition with no intention of actually educating them, but I think those problem could be worked out. If not, I'm sure there is some other way white people can repay black people for the wrongs we have inflicted on them. I believe the Great Society programs were an honest attempt to address the problem, and could have even been considered a type of reparation, but it was a failure for the same reasons many liberal policies fail (i.e., complete lack of understanding or acknowledgement of markets and market forces).
I think it's very easy for white people to say "oh, it's all in the past, buck up and get on with your life!", but I believe that blacks today are suffering terribly from a vicious cycle of poverty that is a direct consequence of white injustice and inequity that we inflicted on them. Furthermore, I believe that we, as whites, are direct beneficiaries to this day of that injustice and inequity.
The ultimate injustice is for one group to prosper as a direct function of another group's suffering. Make no mistake-- a substantial amount of white people's wealth and prosperity-- today -- comes directly from the suffering of black people-- today. This injustice may be indirect, but it's still present right here, right now, today.
The only way to right this situation is some kind of a reparation, from white people-- today--, to black people --today.
Hey Jim!
Ah Scott Johnson, now there's a blast from the past. God I hated that guy, he was such a sanctimonious prick. Yeah Scotty & Sue were attached at the hip way back when. I was glad to see them both take a hike...of course Sue has returned a number of time under new monikers. We always call her out, and she vanishes, for awhile. Then reincarnates herself... this time as BottleBlondie. Nice to know you can see it too.
Hope you're back to stay.. We could use more Cons around here!!!
Well while I see where you're coming from on reparations, you haven't convinced me that White folks living today owe cash payouts or special treatment, beyond affirmative action, which I do agree with.
Student loans for those that have academically earned their way into college are available to everyone. Perhaps you have to attend more affordable schools like a junior college or state school instead of say, a Harvard...but a college education is a college education.
My ancestors did not reach these shores until the early 1900's. They did not own slaves. I do not owe anyone anything for what folks, unrelated to me, many now long dead, did to Blacks or any other minority. The Civil Rights act implemented some 40 years ago has proven the best way to attempt to level the playing field...and it's shining achievement may be in electing this nations first African-American to the White House.
Also, think about how reparations would be doled out...I can only imagine the red tape & scams that would tie the whole process up for years. Bringing the cost even further out of whack.
This country has come a long way in improving race relations & in offering more opportunities to minorities. Reparations are not needed.
Ah Scott Johnson, now there's a blast from the past. God I hated that guy, he was such a sanctimonious prick. Yeah Scotty & Sue were attached at the hip way back when. I was glad to see them both take a hike...
Actually, I have a different take on that. Sue is very irritating and Scott is a major-league as$, but they're both excellent thinkers and debaters. I can honestly say I learned quite a bit from both of them (and Solon as well). I learned long ago that, if someone has a first-rate intellect, you don't ignore them, even if the annoy the hell out of you. For example, now that Al Franken is off the air, I watch Olbermann every night. Keith spends half the time being an arrogant, sanctimonious, self-righteous jerk, but he's also pretty smart so I know I will come away with a good understanding of the liberal position on most issues.
By the way, if you really miss Scott, he still has a blog with a picture:
http://rc2k8.blogspot.com/
Hope you're back to stay.. We could use more Cons around here!!!
Nope-- way too time consuming. My research is going very well (just had a major publication of my life's work!) and I'm up for tenure in the fall. Today I'm switching offices, am sick of moving, saw your post and decided to chime in. I'll be going back into deep-lurk mode after this.
My ancestors did not reach these shores until the early 1900's. They did not own slaves. I do not owe anyone anything for what folks, unrelated to me, many now long dead, did to Blacks or any other minority.
When your ancestors arrived on these shores, they benefited from a tremendous infrastructure that was created to a large degree by black people that were either slaves or paid near-slave wages. Furthermore, the blacks that created the wealth that you ancestors benefited from were specifically excluded from benefiting from much of it. So your ancestors used wealth to raise and develop their children who in turn were in a better position to raise their children and so on until you were born and raised.
The black people at the time your ancestors arrived were excluded from the wealth they created, making it very difficult to maintain the family structures common for whites, putting those black children at a huge disadvantage. This disadvantage was passed on to subsequent generations until we arrive at today.
Thus, you have benefits in your life today that came out of a black person of today's standard of living due to past unfair treatment. It may not be that you stole this increased standard of living directly from a black person of today, but make no mistake, you have that ill-gotten gain and the black person is suffering because of it.
The Civil Rights act implemented some 40 years ago has proven the best way to attempt to level the playing field...
While the Civil Rights Act was a very positive step, it did nothing to return the wealth to black people that was stolen from them by white people in all the years proceeding it.
Also, think about how reparations would be doled out...I can only imagine the red tape & scams that would tie the whole process up for years. Bringing the cost even further out of whack.
As I said before, there will be numerous implementation issues. That does not absolve white people of doing the right thing. We should work out the issues and repay these people in some meaningful way (e.g., free education).
This country has come a long way in improving race relations & in offering more opportunities to minorities. Reparations are not needed.
Again, that's easy for a white person to say (and, to repeat, I am white). Read "Slavery by Another Name" and ponder the inequities that blacks have suffered until the '60's and see if you don't agree that simply saying "OK, we were wrong to steal from you blacks for all those years. We'll stop that now, so everything's even-steven" is not reasonable. We owe them.
Jim Rogers, thank you for taking the time to post.
This 73 year old African American woman was blown away by your complete understanding of slavery and it's lasting effects on African Americans. I do believe you're the first white person I've ever heard express such truthful facts in such an eloquent and honest manner.
And by the way, I don't want cash, I want a apology from the US government. I want children years from now to study history and see their government admit it was wrong. If the US can admit to a mistake with Japanese, they can damn well admit to a humongous mistake with slavery.
It's not about money nor whether your family owned slaves. It doesn't matter! American owes African Americans an apology for slavery. And for those who think their family didn't own slaves, visit a genealogy site. Take a trip back through your family's history, you might be surprised.
Very nice Jeter.
Good government provides accessible paths for a good living to all of its citizens. medical, educational, and employment access for everybody.
A higher education means access to a better paying job. The increase in wages equates to more revenue to the government without any tax rate increase.
Better health in the population equates to a more robust worker, which equates to a saving to the company which employs him though less days sick and a better emotional outlook on the job.
Some of that 1.5 trillion in assets currently resting nicely in off shore tax havens could provide for the human sweat that produced that money, but not today.
I don't see what's unreasonable about that, so dismissing it as "2 + 2 = apple" seems to be you just sticking your head in the sand.
Oh, wow. The cute "2 + 2 = apple" line was so effective that I totally forgot that he didn't even bother to explain why it was incompatible. That's just how AA rolls. :-)