The point is- who wants to give Marty's family money? Not anyone who has no dog in that fight. And no one present day has a dog in the fight. But if your family wants to give Marty's family money y'all go right ahead. 

I can show via genealogy that no one in my family owned slaves. Hell, the Germans and Irish were treated quite badly when they came over here; look up Irish slavery. We had to pretend to be something else so we weren't treated harshly and only got away with it because we happened to be white. 

So, yeah, I'm not paying anyone anything because I owe no one.

My genealogy shows the exact same thing.  It's possible that my maternal grandmother's family was in the US prior to the Civil War, but unlikely that they owned any slaves. The rest came after. This whole question is very different in a US context vs. a British context.  In the US the freed slaves all immediately got education and many of them also got land (though many weren't able to hold on to it for long,  with the banks, shops, and courts rigged against them after 1876). And their slave owners typically went bankrupt during and after the Civil War. 
One can argue that the white people in the US owe reparations to the black people, but it's not for slavery.  It would be for things like Jim Crow and redlining, that happened afterwards.  And my ancestors were here for that.  So were yours.

I know you're just being devil's advocate here, and I appreciate that, but here's my opinion. 

I'm not in favor of assigning guilt or victimhood based on race.  Especially when so many people have the blood of multiple races in them, and so many people did not have ancestors who were perpetrators or victims.  Are my ancestors responsible for Jim Crow because they were white?  To say that, since some white people victimized some black people, then all white people are guilty and all black people are victims, is grossly unfair.  If a white person murders a black person tomorrow, would I share the guilt because I am white?  And if a crowd of black people have a riot and burn down several blocks of a city, are all black people responsible for that?  If you said they were, you'd be justifiably called a racist.  

And who in this country is white or black, anyway?  There are so many people of mixed race now.  Would we judge victimhood by measuring skin tone?  Would people have to do DNA tests to prove they are descended from a black person in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Better buy stock in Ancestry.com.  What if a person had a white and a black ancestor who lived in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Maybe he could move a few bucks from his right pocket to his left pocket.  Because he's a perpetrator and a victim.    

What do you think would happen if reparations are handed out based on race?  What do you tell a poor white person when a richer black person gets money because of his skin color?  Are you going to tell him that we should all be equal under the law, when you just violated that principle? That poor white guy is going to resent it, and you're going to see an explosion of racial resentment and racism when you hand out money to people of a certain race.  

The whole idea of assigning victimhood based on things that happened a hundred years ago, and basing it on skin color, is unworkable, and  destructive to our social fabric.  There's no denying history.  Things happened that were bad.  But we can't fix it in this case.

---

My genealogy shows the exact same thing.  It's possible that my maternal grandmother's family was in the US prior to the Civil War, but unlikely that they owned any slaves. The rest came after. This whole question is very different in a US context vs. a British context.  In the US the freed slaves all immediately got education and many of them also got land (though many weren't able to hold on to it for long,  with the banks, shops, and courts rigged against them after 1876). And their slave owners typically went bankrupt during and after the Civil War. 
One can argue that the white people in the US owe reparations to the black people, but it's not for slavery.  It would be for things like Jim Crow and redlining, that happened afterwards.  And my ancestors were here for that.  So were yours.

I know you're just being devil's advocate here, and I appreciate that, but here's my opinion. 

I'm not in favor of assigning guilt or victimhood based on race.  Especially when so many people have the blood of multiple races in them, and so many people did not have ancestors who were perpetrators or victims.  Are my ancestors responsible for Jim Crow because they were white?  To say that, since some white people victimized some black people, then all white people are guilty and all black people are victims, is grossly unfair.  If a white person murders a black person tomorrow, would I share the guilt because I am white?  And if a crowd of black people have a riot and burn down several blocks of a city, are all black people responsible for that?  If you said they were, you'd be justifiably called a racist.  

And who in this country is white or black, anyway?  There are so many people of mixed race now.  Would we judge victimhood by measuring skin tone?  Would people have to do DNA tests to prove they are descended from a black person in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Better buy stock in Ancestry.com.  What if a person had a white and a black ancestor who lived in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Maybe he could move a few bucks from his right pocket to his left pocket.  Because he's a perpetrator and a victim.    

What do you think would happen if reparations are handed out based on race?  What do you tell a poor white person when a richer black person gets money because of his skin color?  Are you going to tell him that we should all be equal under the law, when you just violated that principle? That poor white guy is going to resent it, and you're going to see an explosion of racial resentment and racism when you hand out money to people of a certain race.  

The whole idea of assigning victimhood based on things that happened a hundred years ago, and basing it on skin color, is unworkable, and  destructive to our social fabric.  There's no denying history.  Things happened that were bad.  But we can't fix it in this case.

The higher the stakes, the more people lie.
People don't lie much on the elementary and high school lotteries we have to meet racial quotas at magnet and charter schools in some places.
But they do stretch the truth in college admissions.  Anyone with a drop of African ancestry is black, and Asians select "prefer not to say."
It wouldn't make much sense to have any kind of large benefit based on race, for that reason.
But a one time check probably isn't the right solution to the problem I described anyhow, even if no one would lie and we could make sure only the "right" people got the check.
The problem I'm describing is one where, 80 years ago, white people had the opportunity to get subsidized mortgages in desirable areas, while black people weren't permitted to live in those areas.  This remained true for about 30 years, in every part of the US. This, not slavery, is the main cause of the racial wealth disparity we see today.  I don't think we can ever make a race-based subsidized mortgage program, but perhaps we should have one based on if your parents are wealthy or not.  Similar to how colleges hand out financial aid based on calculated family wealth, an aid to first time homebuyers could be done the same way.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I know you're just being devil's advocate here, and I appreciate that, but here's my opinion. 

I'm not in favor of assigning guilt or victimhood based on race.  Especially when so many people have the blood of multiple races in them, and so many people did not have ancestors who were perpetrators or victims.  Are my ancestors responsible for Jim Crow because they were white?  To say that, since some white people victimized some black people, then all white people are guilty and all black people are victims, is grossly unfair.  If a white person murders a black person tomorrow, would I share the guilt because I am white?  And if a crowd of black people have a riot and burn down several blocks of a city, are all black people responsible for that?  If you said they were, you'd be justifiably called a racist.  

And who in this country is white or black, anyway?  There are so many people of mixed race now.  Would we judge victimhood by measuring skin tone?  Would people have to do DNA tests to prove they are descended from a black person in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Better buy stock in Ancestry.com.  What if a person had a white and a black ancestor who lived in the South during the Jim Crow era?  Maybe he could move a few bucks from his right pocket to his left pocket.  Because he's a perpetrator and a victim.    

What do you think would happen if reparations are handed out based on race?  What do you tell a poor white person when a richer black person gets money because of his skin color?  Are you going to tell him that we should all be equal under the law, when you just violated that principle? That poor white guy is going to resent it, and you're going to see an explosion of racial resentment and racism when you hand out money to people of a certain race.  

The whole idea of assigning victimhood based on things that happened a hundred years ago, and basing it on skin color, is unworkable, and  destructive to our social fabric.  There's no denying history.  Things happened that were bad.  But we can't fix it in this case.

The higher the stakes, the more people lie.
People don't lie much on the elementary and high school lotteries we have to meet racial quotas at magnet and charter schools in some places.
But they do stretch the truth in college admissions.  Anyone with a drop of African ancestry is black, and Asians select "prefer not to say."
It wouldn't make much sense to have any kind of large benefit based on race, for that reason.
But a one time check probably isn't the right solution to the problem I described anyhow, even if no one would lie and we could make sure only the "right" people got the check.
The problem I'm describing is one where, 80 years ago, white people had the opportunity to get subsidized mortgages in desirable areas, while black people weren't permitted to live in those areas.  This remained true for about 30 years, in every part of the US. This, not slavery, is the main cause of the racial wealth disparity we see today.  I don't think we can ever make a race-based subsidized mortgage program, but perhaps we should have one based on if your parents are wealthy or not.  Similar to how colleges hand out financial aid based on calculated family wealth, an aid to first time homebuyers could be done the same way.

How do you reconcile the fact that most students receiving student aid are minors when first applying, who have no career work experience, and people who apply for mortgages that are adults established in the workforce? It’s an intrinsically unequal comparison.

---

The higher the stakes, the more people lie.
People don't lie much on the elementary and high school lotteries we have to meet racial quotas at magnet and charter schools in some places.
But they do stretch the truth in college admissions.  Anyone with a drop of African ancestry is black, and Asians select "prefer not to say."
It wouldn't make much sense to have any kind of large benefit based on race, for that reason.
But a one time check probably isn't the right solution to the problem I described anyhow, even if no one would lie and we could make sure only the "right" people got the check.
The problem I'm describing is one where, 80 years ago, white people had the opportunity to get subsidized mortgages in desirable areas, while black people weren't permitted to live in those areas.  This remained true for about 30 years, in every part of the US. This, not slavery, is the main cause of the racial wealth disparity we see today.  I don't think we can ever make a race-based subsidized mortgage program, but perhaps we should have one based on if your parents are wealthy or not.  Similar to how colleges hand out financial aid based on calculated family wealth, an aid to first time homebuyers could be done the same way.

How do you reconcile the fact that most students receiving student aid are minors when first applying, who have no career work experience, and people who apply for mortgages that are adults established in the workforce? It’s an intrinsically unequal comparison.

We already have a variety of federal programs that make mortgages cheaper.  I wouldn't necessarily change any of them.  I'm just suggesting adding a new program that only people with poor parents qualify for.  If the home is being purchased by a married couple, and both spouses can document that they and their parents have minimal assets, perhaps the benefit would double.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How do you reconcile the fact that most students receiving student aid are minors when first applying, who have no career work experience, and people who apply for mortgages that are adults established in the workforce? It’s an intrinsically unequal comparison.

We already have a variety of federal programs that make mortgages cheaper.  I wouldn't necessarily change any of them.  I'm just suggesting adding a new program that only people with poor parents qualify for.  If the home is being purchased by a married couple, and both spouses can document that they and their parents have minimal assets, perhaps the benefit would double.

Poverty reparations? Bad idea.

---

We already have a variety of federal programs that make mortgages cheaper.  I wouldn't necessarily change any of them.  I'm just suggesting adding a new program that only people with poor parents qualify for.  If the home is being purchased by a married couple, and both spouses can document that they and their parents have minimal assets, perhaps the benefit would double.

Poverty reparations? Bad idea.

It depends.  If you juice the demand side (subsidized rent or subsidized mortgage) while restricting the supply side (single family zoning, poor mass transit) you get inflation and nothing good.  But if you do the former while reversing the latter, you might get a boom like we saw in the 1950s.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I just don't like the term reparations. Do what you gotta do, even if it is to offset the past, but don't call it reparations. Perhaps just call it balancing the scale or something.

---

I just don't like the term reparations.  Do what you gotta do, even if it is to offset the past, but don't call it reparations.  Perhaps just call it balancing the scale or something.

How about "40 acres and a mule"?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

How about we call it nothing because it's a bad idea. Using government to 'balance the scales' is just wrong on every level. Let's use a scenario:

Me and Marty work at the Widget factory earning the same amount of money and have similar credit scores and debt to income ratios. In every aspect we have similar financial situations, married with 1.8 children, a couple of cars and the typical household bills (except Marty has this strange corset fetish, but that's another story).

At around the same time we both decide to purchase homes. One day as we're discussing mortgages, we discover our rates are not similar considering our nearly equal financial factors. I'm paying substantially less because Marty's father was ambitious, productive and a good provider for his family while mine was an alcoholic who didn't work and cared little about providing for his family. Furthermore, I get an additional discount because my wife, who didn't even grow up in this country, also experienced a destitute childhood. In what ways did our upbringing have any factor on our ability to acquire and honor the obligations of a mortgage as adults established in the workforce? Providing aid to young people for the opportunity to get out of poverty is one thing. Retroactively aiding adults for a poor childhood is misguided at best. In what world does this seem remotely fair?

---

I just don't like the term reparations.  Do what you gotta do, even if it is to offset the past, but don't call it reparations.  Perhaps just call it balancing the scale or something.

How about "40 acres and a mule"?

The freed slaves were offered 40 acres and mules.  A few of them took the offer.  It usually didn't end well, because banks and stores wouldn't extend credit to them.  Those that did often got visits from the KKK.

---

How about we call it nothing because it's a bad idea. Using government to 'balance the scales' is just wrong on every level. Let's use a scenario:

Me and Marty work at the Widget factory earning the same amount of money and have similar credit scores and debt to income ratios. In every aspect we have similar financial situations, married with 1.8 children, a couple of cars and the typical household bills (except Marty has this strange corset fetish, but that's another story).

At around the same time we both decide to purchase homes. One day as we're discussing mortgages, we discover our rates are not similar considering our nearly equal financial factors. I'm paying substantially less because Marty's father was ambitious, productive and a good provider for his family while mine was an alcoholic who didn't work and cared little about providing for his family. Furthermore, I get an additional discount because my wife, who didn't even grow up in this country, also experienced a destitute childhood. In what ways did our upbringing have any factor on our ability to acquire and honor the obligations of a mortgage as adults established in the workforce? Providing aid to young people for the opportunity to get out of poverty is one thing. Retroactively aiding adults for a poor childhood is misguided at best. In what world does this seem remotely fair?

If all that was true, do you think Marty would trade lives with you, to get that lower rate / down payment assistance?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Poverty reparations? Bad idea.

It depends.  If you juice the demand side (subsidized rent or subsidized mortgage) while restricting the supply side (single family zoning, poor mass transit) you get inflation and nothing good.  But if you do the former while reversing the latter, you might get a boom like we saw in the 1950s.

Why are you assuming that black people are necessarily poor today because of slavery? What if thier parents were successful from the 60's to now and they just chose to become poor slackers or wanna-be hip hop thug/artists? Do they also qualify?

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

The point is- who wants to give Marty's family money? Not anyone who has no dog in that fight. And no one present day has a dog in the fight. But if your family wants to give Marty's family money y'all go right ahead. 

I can show via genealogy that no one in my family owned slaves. Hell, the Germans and Irish were treated quite badly when they came over here; look up Irish slavery. We had to pretend to be something else so we weren't treated harshly and only got away with it because we happened to be white. 

So, yeah, I'm not paying anyone anything because I owe no one.

My genealogy shows the exact same thing.  It's possible that my maternal grandmother's family was in the US prior to the Civil War, but unlikely that they owned any slaves. The rest came after. This whole question is very different in a US context vs. a British context.  In the US the freed slaves all immediately got education and many of them also got land (though many weren't able to hold on to it for long,  with the banks, shops, and courts rigged against them after 1876). And their slave owners typically went bankrupt during and after the Civil War. 
One can argue that the white people in the US owe reparations to the black people, but it's not for slavery.  It would be for things like Jim Crow and redlining, that happened afterwards.  And my ancestors were here for that.  So were yours.

They may have been here during it but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. My people aren't even from the south. Not even close. 

I owe no one. Period.

---

I just don't like the term reparations.  Do what you gotta do, even if it is to offset the past, but don't call it reparations.  Perhaps just call it balancing the scale or something.

How about "40 acres and a mule"?

I'm Irish Hawaiian decent, with a little Scottish on the side.. Only half of me burns pretty unevenly.. But that's besides the point.. My Irish roots were once traced back to being 'Shanty Irish'.. So I wouldn't doubt if I had ancestors that were slaves.. If true, I wouldn't care, but if ya'll handin out 40 acres, sign me the hell up.. Hell, I'll settle for 40 ounces of some of that sweet icky sticky..

---

How about "40 acres and a mule"?

The freed slaves were offered 40 acres and mules.  A few of them took the offer.  It usually didn't end well, because banks and stores wouldn't extend credit to them.  Those that did often got visits from the KKK.

---

How about we call it nothing because it's a bad idea. Using government to 'balance the scales' is just wrong on every level. Let's use a scenario:

Me and Marty work at the Widget factory earning the same amount of money and have similar credit scores and debt to income ratios. In every aspect we have similar financial situations, married with 1.8 children, a couple of cars and the typical household bills (except Marty has this strange corset fetish, but that's another story).

At around the same time we both decide to purchase homes. One day as we're discussing mortgages, we discover our rates are not similar considering our nearly equal financial factors. I'm paying substantially less because Marty's father was ambitious, productive and a good provider for his family while mine was an alcoholic who didn't work and cared little about providing for his family. Furthermore, I get an additional discount because my wife, who didn't even grow up in this country, also experienced a destitute childhood. In what ways did our upbringing have any factor on our ability to acquire and honor the obligations of a mortgage as adults established in the workforce? Providing aid to young people for the opportunity to get out of poverty is one thing. Retroactively aiding adults for a poor childhood is misguided at best. In what world does this seem remotely fair?

If all that was true, do you think Marty would trade lives with you, to get that lower rate / down payment assistance?

Whether he wanted to or not, he can't. That's the point. Retroactively, and unfairly, awarding someone for childhood prosperity is discriminatory. Not to mention its very message undermines the American ethos of self-reliance and pulling oneself up by their bootstraps.

---

It depends.  If you juice the demand side (subsidized rent or subsidized mortgage) while restricting the supply side (single family zoning, poor mass transit) you get inflation and nothing good.  But if you do the former while reversing the latter, you might get a boom like we saw in the 1950s.

Why are you assuming that black people are necessarily poor today because of slavery?  What if thier parents were successful from the 60's to now and they just chose to become poor slackers or wanna-be hip hop thug/artists?  Do they also qualify?

I've said in multiple posts that slavery is not the proximate cause of the disparities we see today.  Redlining had the bigger impact.

---

My genealogy shows the exact same thing.  It's possible that my maternal grandmother's family was in the US prior to the Civil War, but unlikely that they owned any slaves. The rest came after. This whole question is very different in a US context vs. a British context.  In the US the freed slaves all immediately got education and many of them also got land (though many weren't able to hold on to it for long,  with the banks, shops, and courts rigged against them after 1876). And their slave owners typically went bankrupt during and after the Civil War. 
One can argue that the white people in the US owe reparations to the black people, but it's not for slavery.  It would be for things like Jim Crow and redlining, that happened afterwards.  And my ancestors were here for that.  So were yours.

They may have been here during it but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. My people aren't even from the south. Not even close. 

I owe no one. Period.

If you're white and if your parents gave you any money to help you get started as an adult, you probably didn't have "anything to do with it" but they and you did benefit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Why are you assuming that black people are necessarily poor today because of slavery?  What if thier parents were successful from the 60's to now and they just chose to become poor slackers or wanna-be hip hop thug/artists?  Do they also qualify?

I've said in multiple posts that slavery is not the proximate cause of the disparities we see today.  Redlining had the bigger impact.

---

They may have been here during it but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. My people aren't even from the south. Not even close. 

I owe no one. Period.

If you're white and if your parents gave you any money to help you get started as an adult, you probably didn't have "anything to do with it" but they and you did benefit.

My parents didn't give me anything except a "good luck" on my way to boot camp. 

No matter how you try to spin it you're not going to convince me that I owe anyone reparations or anything else you want to call it. 

Do you know why Habitat for Humanity requires homebuyers to work for their house via sweat equity? They want the homebuyer to be invested in their house before they even move in. HFH is not going to just give people a house. We had a lady who was about a quarter of the way through her sweat equity when she called it quits. She didn't want to work for her house, she wanted them to give it to her. 

If people aren't willing to make an effort to get whatever they need be it a place to live, an education, a job/career, etc., they aren't going to have anything. All of the government programs that have been in place for decades have done nothing to get folks out of poverty, off of food stamps, out of public housing because they don't give people the incentive to do better.

---

Why are you assuming that black people are necessarily poor today because of slavery?  What if thier parents were successful from the 60's to now and they just chose to become poor slackers or wanna-be hip hop thug/artists?  Do they also qualify?

I've said in multiple posts that slavery is not the proximate cause of the disparities we see today.  Redlining had the bigger impact.

---

They may have been here during it but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. My people aren't even from the south. Not even close. 

I owe no one. Period.

If you're white and if your parents gave you any money to help you get started as an adult, you probably didn't have "anything to do with it" but they and you did benefit.

 For the love of heaven stop trying so hard to be the devil’s advocate.  Does a person of color doing the exact same thing get the same scrutiny?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I've said in multiple posts that slavery is not the proximate cause of the disparities we see today.  Redlining had the bigger impact.

---

If you're white and if your parents gave you any money to help you get started as an adult, you probably didn't have "anything to do with it" but they and you did benefit.

 For the love of heaven stop trying so hard to be the devil’s advocate.  Does a person of color doing the exact same thing get the same scrutiny?

He's being a contrarian. I think even the devil would stop trying to spin it at this point.

---

My genealogy shows the exact same thing.  It's possible that my maternal grandmother's family was in the US prior to the Civil War, but unlikely that they owned any slaves. The rest came after. This whole question is very different in a US context vs. a British context.  In the US the freed slaves all immediately got education and many of them also got land (though many weren't able to hold on to it for long,  with the banks, shops, and courts rigged against them after 1876). And their slave owners typically went bankrupt during and after the Civil War. 
One can argue that the white people in the US owe reparations to the black people, but it's not for slavery.  It would be for things like Jim Crow and redlining, that happened afterwards.  And my ancestors were here for that.  So were yours.

They may have been here during it but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. My people aren't even from the south. Not even close. 

I owe no one. Period.

I emigrated from Greece and my wife from Peru, so count us in as well on this 'no owe' list. Tho I'm sure we've already paid more than enough for someone's food stamps, subsidized housing and Medicaid over the years via our tax dollars. Not to mention 5 college degrees, which now I wish I hadn't paid off, tho I would probably not qualify for debt forgiveness anyway. So maybe my wife and I are owed some tax reparations. Or at least a thank you from the government/people we supported, which will never happen.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

My great, great, great grandfather was a Major in the Union army. I think I'm owed some compensation for my ancestor helping to stop slavery.

---