Monday, October 27, 2008
Spreading the wealth around = reparations for slavery?
Proving that his rope line response to Joe the Plumber wasn't merely a throw-away comment, this interview from 2001 reveals Barack Obama discussing not whether it's right to redistribute wealth as a means of reparation for past wrongs, but the best way to go about it. He also describes the Supreme Court as "restrained" by the founding fathers and the constitution. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will. At least now we know what a "community organizer" does.
With his assertion that the legislative process is the right way to get it done, does anyone doubt that a President Obama with a supermajority Democratic Congress won't do it?
We also know now what "hope and change" mean. If this guy gets elected, you hope you'll have enough change to ride the bus.
Hat Tip: Ace of Spades
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Reagan issued $1.6 billion in reparations to Americans for past wrongs.
What makes Obama so un-American for talking, not about reparations, but about addressing present-day wrongs?
Link, please.
Are you asking for a link about Reagan and reparations?
For instance, you can check out Public Law No. 100-383, implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which Reagan signed into law on Aug. 10, 1988. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=100-383.
This bill, supported by Reagan as the former Governor of California and sponsored in Congress by a Republican senator and Democratic congressman, apologized on behalf of the United States for herding Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps in WWII.
In signing this law, Reagan also authorized the spending of $1.2 billion (later increased to $1.6 billion) as reparations for the victims--and, if they were no longer alive, for their descendants. These reparations amounted to $20,000 per person.
There is a difference between paying what amounts to a civil penalty to the people who's rights were violated and paying what's commonly referred to a reparations for American slavery.
Although I think the usage here of 'reparative' isn't in reference to reparations for slavery, it's regarding current/recent economic inequity. Basically, blogger E has more money than commenter M. Therefore the gummint should take from blogger E and give to commenter M. However the gummint needs to withhold a finder's fee, a processing fee, shipping and handling, etc. Commenter M gets only a sliver of the money taken from blogger E.
Commenter J may think this is good, however J also has more money then M, so...
In the end, everyone becomes poor. But we'll have The One.
Yeah, I had to look it up but it seems to me that this comparison, while politically expedient, is an apples/oranges thing. There's a huge difference between compensating the actual victim for a wrong some 40 years after the fact and restructuring our tax and entitlements system to benefit the descendants of victims many generations removed.
Using that logic, the gummint owes me something for the crappy treatment my Irish forebears experienced.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
There is a difference between paying what amounts to a civil penalty to the people who's rights were violated and paying what's commonly referred to a reparations for American slavery.
What's the difference between Reagan paying reparations to the descendants of those who suffered one injustice, and paying reparations to the descendants of those who suffered another?
The WWII concentration camps in the U.S. weren't violations of anyone's rights at the time. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they were legal, just as slavery was seen as legal at the time.
If you're saying the abuses were different, then surely slavery was worse?
I'm not looking for any government money to make me rich. I'm not even looking for anyone to receive money for slavery.
I'm just saying that this is hardly an un-American idea.
I agree that Obama is focusedd on current inequality, but I think he's drawing a direct link between slavery and the present day, to help justify a government response.
There's a huge difference between compensating the actual victim for a wrong some 40 years after the fact
Let me make sure this is clear: Reagan wasn't compensating the actual victims. He was compensating those victims if they were still alive, and if not, then their descendants were compensated.
Using that logic, the gummint owes me something for the crappy treatment my Irish forebears experienced.
Did the government officially sanction the enslavement of your Irish ancestors?
Did the government spend a century after slavery, discriminating against your Irish ancestors?
Perhaps the two situations aren't comparable, then.
The language of the legislation says "heirs", not "descendants". That may be a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
You're right that the treatment of Irish immigrants is an unfair and inadequate comparison. My point was that reparations in general, I think, are a bad idea.
That may be a fine distinction, but it's an important one.
I'm not sure I appreciate the importance of the distinction. In any event, though, I don't see the word "heirs" in the Act.
Instead, if the original victim (and spouse) are dead, compensation is to be divided among the victim's living descendants, as defined in the Act but without regard to who is or is not an heir.
My point was that reparations in general, I think, are a bad idea.
On that we agree. :-)
Post a Comment