Obama claims he opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves and argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

Then again he claims the U.S. should review how it can make amends for "offenses" committed during its history. "There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told the convention. This, to me, sounds like more than improving schools, health care and the economy for all. Sounds like reparations to me.

But then again, Obama said, "The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income. Our inner cities are a legacy of what happened in the past. And the question is less assigning blame or rooting out active racism, because that's not the reason that those inner cities are in such bad shape, but rather figuring out are we willing to make the investments to deal with that past history so we can move forward to a brighter future? And that involves investing in early childhood education, fixing the schools in those communities, being willing to work in terms of job retraining. And those are serious investments." Take new schools for instance. How does building a new school in the inner city make kids go to school? How does building new schools make bad parents good parents?

Question I have is how expensive and destructive would Obama's income redistribution policy be. What will it do to the economy?

I didn't read anything that leads me to believe he advocates reparations. As a matter of fact he's on record (ACESFULL: he is taking a stand against his consituents) of being against it despite calls for it from various groups.

 

So your thread should be asking if he's on the right track for improving the plight of the urban community who have terrible schools.

If you read Obama's statements regarding reparations carefully you will find that he carefull chooses his words when responding to the reparations question. I have never read or heard him explicitly say that he would veto a reparations bill. His approach has been to launch into his pitch for expanding liberal spending programs to combat problems that he believes are rooted in racist policies of the past. Of course, with Obama's willingness to make 180-degree changes in his position on a dime, it really does not matter what his position on reparations is currently, does it?

If you read Obama's statements regarding reparations carefully you will find that he carefull chooses his words when responding to the reparations question. I have never read or heard him explicitly say that he would veto a reparations bill. His approach has been to launch into his pitch for expanding liberal spending programs to combat problems that he believes are rooted in racist policies of the past. Of course, with Obama's willingness to make 180-degree changes in his position on a dime, it really does not matter what his position on reparations is currently, does it?

Exactly! He choose his words VERY carefully.

I didn't read anything that leads me to believe he advocates reparations. As a matter of fact he's on record (ACESFULL: he is taking a stand against his consituents) of being against it despite calls for it from various groups.

 

So your thread should be asking if he's on the right track for improving the plight of the urban community who have terrible schools.

Clyde, tell me what new schools will do to make kids and parents, that don't care in the first place, enthusiastic about going to school.

Obama claims he opposes offering reparations to the descendants of slaves and argues that government should instead combat the legacy of slavery by improving schools, health care and the economy for all.

Then again he claims the U.S. should review how it can make amends for "offenses" committed during its history. "There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for," Obama told the convention. This, to me, sounds like more than improving schools, health care and the economy for all. Sounds like reparations to me.

But then again, Obama said, "The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income. Our inner cities are a legacy of what happened in the past. And the question is less assigning blame or rooting out active racism, because that's not the reason that those inner cities are in such bad shape, but rather figuring out are we willing to make the investments to deal with that past history so we can move forward to a brighter future? And that involves investing in early childhood education, fixing the schools in those communities, being willing to work in terms of job retraining. And those are serious investments." Take new schools for instance. How does building a new school in the inner city make kids go to school? How does building new schools make bad parents good parents?

Question I have is how expensive and destructive would Obama's income redistribution policy be. What will it do to the economy?

 

 

 

How can anyone answer your question when all you have provided are your ridiculous non-specific inferrences and innuendo? If he had said, "I support reparations of X amount according to the following formula", one might be able to calculate "how expensive" it would be in quantitative terms. You provide nothing other than fear-mongering interpretations of public statements that make no reference to your context of reparations whatsoever.

 

Why don't you sit down and try to figure out how we will fund infrastructure, national defense, and exploding entitlement spending when John McCain implements his wreckless plan to slash just about every federal revenue stream in existence?

If you read Obama's statements regarding reparations carefully you will find that he carefull chooses his words when responding to the reparations question. I have never read or heard him explicitly say that he would veto a reparations bill. His approach has been to launch into his pitch for expanding liberal spending programs to combat problems that he believes are rooted in racist policies of the past. Of course, with Obama's willingness to make 180-degree changes in his position on a dime, it really does not matter what his position on reparations is currently, does it?

 

You guys seem to have some level of intelligence so I don't think I'm a computer/internet genius when I can find an article saying he is against the traditional concept of reparations and said so in 04.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZ0B_yzHzr4ozpmkGVAoGkqH9OMgD92A5GCG0

How can anyone answer your question when all you have provided are your ridiculous non-specific inferrences and innuendo? If he had said, "I support reparations of X amount according to the following formula", one might be able to calculate "how expensive" it would be in quantitative terms. You provide nothing other than fear-mongering interpretations of public statements that make no reference to your context of reparations whatsoever.

 

Why don't you sit down and try to figure out how we will fund infrastructure, national defense, and exploding entitlement spending when John McCain implements his wreckless plan to slash just about every federal revenue stream in existence?

 

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

If you read Obama's statements regarding reparations carefully you will find that he carefull chooses his words when responding to the reparations question. I have never read or heard him explicitly say that he would veto a reparations bill. His approach has been to launch into his pitch for expanding liberal spending programs to combat problems that he believes are rooted in racist policies of the past. Of course, with Obama's willingness to make 180-degree changes in his position on a dime, it really does not matter what his position on reparations is currently, does it?

 

 

Oh, that's rich. Now, Obama is for everything that he has never explicitly said he is against. That is an argument so fallacious it deserves to be applied to McCain too.

 

Hey everybody, McCain is for running over old ladies crossing the street!

 

He never said he wasn't, so he must be.

Clyde, tell me what new schools will do to make kids and parents, that don't care in the first place, enthusiastic about going to school.

 

Are we talking about this or are we talking reparations as your title says?

 

The former is a legit discussion and not an easy one to answer. There is a bit of "chicken or the egg" in it as I see it. Will neighborhoods improve IF there is a renewed focus on seriously attacking the problem or do we wait until attitudes/conditions improve BEFORE we make a run at solving the problem?

 

I won't speak for those that live in this dreadful situation on a daily basis as I type from my cozy suburban home. However, if I were to be so bold to presume I could see where those folks don't see any REAL improvements being made. Part of that could be and probably has something to do with the teacher's union. Simply throwing money is not the answer. My guess is that facilities that are literally crumbling do not foster much excitement about the process. I would also guess it doesn't exactly draw the top teachers so its a snowball effect.

 

The neighborhoods have to accept part/much of the responsibility but , in reality, the voting public doesn't place inner city education very high on the list so not much is going to change.

I think I read twice in the original post that Obama would rather improve schools, health care and the economy for all instead of providing reparations. What is the argument here? He's against them. He said he's against them. Yet you all are still trying to twist his words and claim that he is for them? Is that how this is going?

 

I have no problem with improving schools, health care and economy for people living in the inner cities. Why would anyone?

Oh, that's rich. Now, Obama is for everything that he has never explicitly said he is against. That is an argument so fallacious it deserves to be applied to McCain too.

 

Hey everybody, McCain is for running over old ladies crossing the street!

 

He never said he wasn't, so he must be.

 

Well I can't vote for someone who wants to run over old ladies crossing the street!:lol:

Oh, that's rich. Now, Obama is for everything that he has never explicitly said he is against. That is an argument so fallacious it deserves to be applied to McCain too.

 

Hey everybody, McCain is for running over old ladies crossing the street!

 

He never said he wasn't, so he must be.

Obama has been asked repeatedly about reparations and he has never taken the opportunity to answer the question in a direct way. A simple, "I oppose reparations in any form and would veto such legislation if it reached my desk" would be a clear, direct response - but Obama does not like to answer questions in a clear, concise manner for political reasons.

Well I can't vote for someone who wants to run over old ladies crossing the street!:lol:

 

He's also for kicking puppies and pulling little girls' pigtails! :lol:

Obama has been asked repeatedly about reparations and he has never taken the opportunity to answer the question in a direct way. A simple, "I oppose reparations in any form and would veto such legislation if it reached my desk" would be a clear, direct response - but Obama does not like to answer questions in a clear, concise manner for political reasons.

 

One more example of reading into it what you actually want to hear/read.

 

He has made it clear that reparations are now the answer. Make the lives of those affected better and that will be enough.