BLM Coalition Reveals 6 Point Policy Platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

You say this as if politicians should not change and evolve over time. The 90s a LONG time ago, and the problems of today are different than the problems then.

yeah

Ask Terry Gross (NRP) how Hillary "responded" to her question about gay marriage.

bottom line - She didn't. She never said she fully supported it. However, b/c she is following a presidency that managed to level the playing field for gays, she is forced to change her actions. Her views, however, remain the same.

She's doing anything she can to earn votes. This BLM platform will surely fuck her up and place her in an uncomfortable position.

[Anonymous]

The United States Revenue Act of 1913 allowed the Federal government to tax the income of individuals and that money went toward Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, unemployment insurance, highway and mass transit spending, and education.
The Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965 helped break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
1965 minus 1913 equals 52. For Fifty-two years blacks were being taxed as citizens but not allowed to vote as citizens and its safe to assume the majority of their tax dollars were not put toward their communities or their individual interests but were put toward improving the lives and prosperity of white citizens.
Speaking of individual interests, the Social Security Act of 1935 which provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement, specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants who were predominately African American.
Once again, blacks paying their fair share but getting nothing in return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

PP here. It's going to be quite the tightrope for Clinton. Support the BLM's hostile attitude and unreasonable demands, and she'll send more whites to Trump. Cut BLM down to size, and she loses the minorities. Ironic that BLM has made it more difficult for Clinton to win.

+1. BLM-related BS is one of the main reasons I considered voting for Trump (and I'm a minority). I simply cannot stand seeing politicians intimidated by a bunch of infantile anarchists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-democratic-national-convention
Clinton Emphasizes Racial Justice, But Some Black Activists Are Unconvinced

McKesson joined other leading figures in the Black Lives Matter movement in Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, but the activists have resisted openly supporting the party's nominee. In June, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told Elle magazine that although she would probably cast her vote for Clinton in November, she would "absolutely not" endorse her publicly, citing the former first lady's public support of the 1994 crime bill and the tough-on-crime policies it instituted.

If BLM wishes to move forward, Clinton would be their only hope, but she's clearly not trusted by some BLM leaders.

If BLM wants to move forward, they need to get a grip with their "demands." The OP said that the document doesn't blame white people, but then who are they blaming this "War on Blacks" on? Themselves? Certainly not. The animosity toward whites rings and loud and clear throughout.

They are not going to win any support with that attitude, and in fact will start to lose support unless they moderate their "demands." As a start, how about reframing their wants as "policy goals" rather than demands - and then throw a little realism into the mix. The thing that struck me as the most asinine is the DEMAND that every black in this country (illegals included!) get automatic admission to a four-year college and have it paid for by tax-payers.

I agree with you completely. These demands are simplistic and unrealistic, and this movement ironically labels whites as monolithic, a term against which many African Americans/blacks have fought.

I posted, however, to show the hypocrisy in Clinton's role as one who coined the term "super predator" in the 90s but has since pledged support of BLM. Of course, the support came before this platform was designed.

I am eager to see how she addresses this platform in an effort to keep the minority votes coming in.

PP here. It's going to be quite the tightrope for Clinton. Support the BLM's hostile attitude and unreasonable demands, and she'll send more whites to Trump. Cut BLM down to size, and she loses the minorities. Ironic that BLM has made it more difficult for Clinton to win.

+1. BLM-related BS is one of the main reasons I considered voting for Trump (and I'm a minority). I simply cannot stand seeing politicians intimidated by a bunch of infantile anarchists.

Once elected, HRC will literally never do anything for BLM other than photo ops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The United States Revenue Act of 1913 allowed the Federal government to tax the income of individuals and that money went toward Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, unemployment insurance, highway and mass transit spending, and education.
The Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965 helped break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
1965 minus 1913 equals 52. For Fifty-two years blacks were being taxed as citizens but not allowed to vote as citizens and its safe to assume the majority of their tax dollars were not put toward their communities or their individual interests but were put toward improving the lives and prosperity of white citizens.
Speaking of individual interests, the Social Security Act of 1935 which provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement, specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants who were predominately African American.
Once again, blacks paying their fair share but getting nothing in return.

Um, the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, not 1965.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States Revenue Act of 1913 allowed the Federal government to tax the income of individuals and that money went toward Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, unemployment insurance, highway and mass transit spending, and education.
The Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965 helped break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
1965 minus 1913 equals 52. For Fifty-two years blacks were being taxed as citizens but not allowed to vote as citizens and its safe to assume the majority of their tax dollars were not put toward their communities or their individual interests but were put toward improving the lives and prosperity of white citizens.
Speaking of individual interests, the Social Security Act of 1935 which provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement, specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants who were predominately African American.
Once again, blacks paying their fair share but getting nothing in return.

Um, the 15th amendment was ratified in 1870, not 1965.

This is true but if the 15th Amendment granting African-Americans the right to vote was legitimate there wouldn't have been any need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The United States Revenue Act of 1913 allowed the Federal government to tax the income of individuals and that money went toward Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, unemployment insurance, highway and mass transit spending, and education.
The Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965 helped break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
1965 minus 1913 equals 52. For Fifty-two years blacks were being taxed as citizens but not allowed to vote as citizens and its safe to assume the majority of their tax dollars were not put toward their communities or their individual interests but were put toward improving the lives and prosperity of white citizens.
Speaking of individual interests, the Social Security Act of 1935 which provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement, specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants who were predominately African American.
Once again, blacks paying their fair share but getting nothing in return.

What exactly do you hope is the outcome of reparations?

According to PEW, more minorities than whites have used food stamps.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

Do you think that with reparations, this number will go down? Do you believe that by giving blacks a free ride to college, all students offered this gift will graduate?

According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students. Here, the only positive news we have to report is that over the past two years the black student graduation rate has improved by three percentage points.

http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html

The article from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education gives plenty of reasons why the dropout rate is higher for blacks. These reasons, however, won't be solved by free tuition. Therefore, the BLM requests were written by people who didn't do their research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

Not PP, but lets ride with your comment for a second. You think EEO and affirmative action laws, which make it illegal for institutions to discriminate based on race (among other things), and which require racial minorities to be considered when making decisions, are "discriminatory?" You consider laws that require institutions to do what they are morally supposed to do, reparations? LOL

The Trump School of Trolling has failed you my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

Not PP, but lets ride with your comment for a second. You think EEO and affirmative action laws, which make it illegal for institutions to discriminate based on race (among other things), and which require racial minorities to be considered when making decisions, are "discriminatory?" You consider laws that require institutions to do what they are morally supposed to do, reparations? LOL

The Trump School of Trolling has failed you my friend.

Not PP. Just curious. I'm guessing you're really young or maybe self-employed? That's not how AA works in terms of employment. It's not about ensuring consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

Not PP, but lets ride with your comment for a second. You think EEO and affirmative action laws, which make it illegal for institutions to discriminate based on race (among other things), and which require racial minorities to be considered when making decisions, are "discriminatory?" You consider laws that require institutions to do what they are morally supposed to do, reparations? LOL

The Trump School of Trolling has failed you my friend.

They're getting more than merely being "considered," my friend - they're getting preferential treatment over whites when it comes to higher education admissions, job hires, and promotions. That's reparations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States Revenue Act of 1913 allowed the Federal government to tax the income of individuals and that money went toward Social Security, Medicare Hospital Insurance, unemployment insurance, highway and mass transit spending, and education.
The Voting Rights Act was signed on August 6, 1965 helped break down the legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote.
1965 minus 1913 equals 52. For Fifty-two years blacks were being taxed as citizens but not allowed to vote as citizens and its safe to assume the majority of their tax dollars were not put toward their communities or their individual interests but were put toward improving the lives and prosperity of white citizens.
Speaking of individual interests, the Social Security Act of 1935 which provided a safety net for millions of workers, guaranteeing them an income after retirement, specifically excluded two occupations: agricultural workers and domestic servants who were predominately African American.
Once again, blacks paying their fair share but getting nothing in return.

What exactly do you hope is the outcome of reparations?

According to PEW, more minorities than whites have used food stamps.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

Do you think that with reparations, this number will go down? Do you believe that by giving blacks a free ride to college, all students offered this gift will graduate?

According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students. Here, the only positive news we have to report is that over the past two years the black student graduation rate has improved by three percentage points.

http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html

The article from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education gives plenty of reasons why the dropout rate is higher for blacks. These reasons, however, won't be solved by free tuition. Therefore, the BLM requests were written by people who didn't do their research.

Not PP, but I will bite:

"What exactly do you hope is the outcome of reparations? According to PEW, more minorities than whites have used food stamps. "

This is apples and oranges. Food stamps = welfare, which is a national social program that any citizen can participate in and with poor whites being the primary users (not that it matters, but you brought up race here). Reparations = payment for past wrongs.

"Do you think that with reparations, this number will go down? Do you believe that by giving blacks a free ride to college, all students offered this gift will graduate? "

I have no idea if reparations will help improve AAs economically or in education. It hasn't appeared to help Native Americans too much. None of this really matters though. Reparations are an attempt to right a wrong. AAs suffered economically due to the actions of the government. They should be compensated as such. Not sure why this seems to be such a hard concept to comprehend.


"The article from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education gives plenty of reasons why the dropout rate is higher for blacks. These reasons, however, won't be solved by free tuition. Therefore, the BLM requests were written by people who didn't do their research."

I agree that free tuition alone won't help AAs improve. Neither does affirmative action programs that place unqualified AAs in highly competitive schools. It seems though that you are only focusing on one the policy points. Perhaps you need to look at BLMs entire policy platform and then revisit your analysis on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly do you hope is the outcome of reparations?

According to PEW, more minorities than whites have used food stamps.

Beyond politics, equally large or larger gaps emerge in the participation rates of many core social and demographic groups. For example, women were about twice as likely as men (23% vs. 12%) to have received food stamps at some point in their lives. Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

Do you think that with reparations, this number will go down? Do you believe that by giving blacks a free ride to college, all students offered this gift will graduate?

According to the most recent statistics, the nationwide college graduation rate for black students stands at an appallingly low rate of 42 percent. This figure is 20 percentage points below the 62 percent rate for white students. Here, the only positive news we have to report is that over the past two years the black student graduation rate has improved by three percentage points.

http://www.jbhe.com/features/50_blackstudent_gradrates.html

The article from The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education gives plenty of reasons why the dropout rate is higher for blacks. These reasons, however, won't be solved by free tuition. Therefore, the BLM requests were written by people who didn't do their research.

If some type of reparations were indeed enacted I definitely don't think the outcome should be more food stamps or even a free ride to college, I think the outcome should be greater equity. And by equity I mean both in terms of "the quality of being fair and impartial" as well as in terms of "ownership and the monetary value of a property".
Forty-two percent of the net worth of all households consists of equity in their homes - that means for most Americans, their homes are their single largest asset. Homeownership provides families with the means to invest in education, business opportunities, retirement and resources for the next generation but for decades African-Americans have been shut out of that part of the American Dream. Even today studies show that showing that African-American mortgage applicants are 60 percent more likely to be turned down for loans than whites, even when they share similar employment and financial backgrounds. Even today research shows that African-American mortgage applicants are rejected 217 percent as often as whites - up from 206 percent ten years ago. Even today studies show that high-cost loans are offered five times more often in predominantly black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods.
Even though the Fair Housing Act was initiated in 1968 housing discrimination still persists today in subtler forms as realtors steer blacks to segregated areas and mortgage applicants who are regularly denied loans by necessity turn to predatory lenders who charge them higher-cost loans than their credit histories warrant.
So many of the social ills that disproportionately affect African-Americans are due in large part to the environment - millions of people packed into overcrowded poverty-stricken inner cities that don't have nearly enough jobs for them and they don't have the means (transportation) or the means (financial) to get a job outside the city and commute or move elsewhere altogether so they're stuck relying on government assistance or reverting to crime and violence to survive.
Now granted,
I am but one person and I'm not affiliated with BLM so this is just my personal opinion and I'm sure someone can poke holes all in my proposition if they want (and I'm sure many will eagerly do just that) but I honestly think that's the best form of reparations if such a thing were to be enacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

Not PP, but lets ride with your comment for a second. You think EEO and affirmative action laws, which make it illegal for institutions to discriminate based on race (among other things), and which require racial minorities to be considered when making decisions, are "discriminatory?" You consider laws that require institutions to do what they are morally supposed to do, reparations? LOL

The Trump School of Trolling has failed you my friend.

Not PP. Just curious. I'm guessing you're really young or maybe self-employed? That's not how AA works in terms of employment. It's not about ensuring consideration.

Semantics. If you want to get a bit more technical, affirmative action is actually a set of procedures/programs designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination and remedy the impact of prior discrimination. This effectively should mean minorities are be discriminated against, so they would have to be eligible for consideration. It certainty is not about creating racial quotas and discriminating against the majority. If it was, its doing a shitty job. So explain to me what exactly you disagree with....

[Anonymous]

When I was young, about 23 or so, I went up against a black woman for a promotion. She told me she would get it because she was black. (With great certainty, I might add.) I figured she was wrong because a) I had worked in that department for two years since my college graduation and she just got hired less than a year earlier, b) I had two years of excellent reviews and she had not yet received even one, and c) I had a bachelor's degree from an excellent college and she was going to community college courses in the evening. Long story short: She got the promotion, which represented a 30% increase in pay, and I really could have used that money. It's a sacrifice I was forced to make in the name of reparations.

I think part of the "pushback" against the BLM demands - besides the fact that they're hostile and ridiculous - is that there isn't any recognition for the reparations whites (and non-blacks) have already made for wrongs done to blacks via slavery. We HAVE indeed lost out on advancement opportunities to lesser-qualified blacks to fulfill diversity quotes. We HAVE had to go to medical school in Central America (as an example) when a black student with much lower grades and scores gets a spot in an American institution. These are a form of reparation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You guys really love you some reparations, huh? Lots of people on here trying to reason away why we (the U.S.) should not owe AAs reparations. Opposition to the debt this country owes AAs is a clear denial of history. AA success in this country has happened DESPITE continued institutionalized racism and oppression.

It's undeniable that the U.S. government owes a moral debt to AAs. Period. I'm White/Asian, and I'm a lifelong conservative. I can easily admit this b/c history makes it very clear. We can disagree or debtate how we payback this debt, and who its specifically owed to, but to ignore it or explain it away with things like "Whites didn't own slaves" or "My family wasn't here, or didn't have slaves, so I shouldn't owe" is really meaningless. Its not about you personally. Its not about whites. Its not even completely about poverty. Its about the U.S. government as an institution and the atrocities it engaged in or allowed, for centuries, on the basis of skin color.

The debt owed to AAs is with the U.S. government. We (tax paying citizens) pay for things we were directly not responsible for all the time. We have paid out billions to Iran, and middle eastern countries to right wrongs. We paid the Native Americans billions and allow tax breaks. We paid Japanese Americans billions, who were relatively new to this country BTW in general. We even paid slave owners reparations after abolishing slavery.

Lets not stop there. We pay when government officials make mistakes or commit atrocities (e.g. police shootings, sexual harassment claims). We pay for policy failures of past federal and local admintrations with our tax dollars. Why all of sudden do we push the brakes when we talk about paying back the very people whose ancestors built this country for free with their blood? Why is THIS one the cardinal sin? This is baffling to me.

For those fixated on "that was in the past we don't owe anyone anything," what about more current atrocities like the effective exclusion of blacks from the GI bill that help rebuild the white middle class, oppressive voting restrictions, housing discrimination, lack of access to credit, watered down affirmative action and civil rights laws, non-enforcement of civil rights laws, racial disparities in sentencing and LE practices. You want to focus on class and ignore race when the issues AAs faced were a direct result of race based policies. You don't think this would have lasting impact on a large % of the targeted group? The shit makes me furious just writing about it, and honestly I still don't understand why AAs as a group support the idea of big government.

You want to talk about poor Whites, or the historical disenfranchisement of Asians? We can brainstorm policies to address that. But it does not diminish the debt the U.S. owes to AAs.

One last thing: Using other countries as an example of how to deal with reparations is weak. We aren't Russia, China or some poor war torn third world country. This is America and we are supposed to be the greatest country in the world. We are supposed to be the lead. WTF would we copy standards from other countries? Or more specifically, since we have already paid reparations numerous times, why would would we only follow their lead when it applies to AAs? Stop it with this.

+1. Great post. So much truth, but most of these folks don't understand or care.

Please, that was a terrible post. We are already paying reparations through state-sponsored discriminatory admissions and hiring processes. I would rather pay a lump sum than deal with BS from unqualified people for the rest of my life.

Not PP, but lets ride with your comment for a second. You think EEO and affirmative action laws, which make it illegal for institutions to discriminate based on race (among other things), and which require racial minorities to be considered when making decisions, are "discriminatory?" You consider laws that require institutions to do what they are morally supposed to do, reparations? LOL

The Trump School of Trolling has failed you my friend.

Not PP. Just curious. I'm guessing you're really young or maybe self-employed? That's not how AA works in terms of employment. It's not about ensuring consideration.

Semantics. If you want to get a bit more technical, affirmative action is actually a set of procedures/programs designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination and remedy the impact of prior discrimination. This effectively should mean minorities are be discriminated against, so they would have to be eligible for consideration. It certainty is not about creating racial quotas and discriminating against the majority. If it was, its doing a shitty job. So explain to me what exactly you disagree with....

So really young then? (Good job with Wikipedia though.)