***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[nawghtyhare]

What is this shhhh

the order for best to worst on that is
sean
2chainz
push
kanye

 

[Methodical Management]

The Greatest Wealth Transfer Program in the U.S. for Whites


From 1862 to 1986, the United States government ran a homestead program that gave 2,992,058 white settlers and European immigrants (both documented and undocumented) a minimum of 160 acres of land from the Mississippi River to the West coast of America, including the Alaskan territory. Authorized by the Homestead Act of 1862, this land giveaway program ended for all participating states in 1976 and ended for land awards in Alaska in 1986.



White recipients in the land giveaway program were recruited through a widespread, government-sponsored advertising campaign in newspapers in America and Europe. The land was awarded to applicants who promised to live on it and develop the land for five years. Title to the property vested at the end of this five-year period.



Claimants paid total filing fees of $18 and $1.25 per acre after six-months of residency. These below-market land acquisition rates essentially made the land a free gift to the recipients.


Congress passed additional laws in 1873 that allowed the government to award larger tracts of land to these white settlers and immigrants.

The Greatest Wealth Transfer Program in the U.S. for Whites

By: Donald V. Watkins© Copyrighted and Published on November 22, 2019A 124-Year-Long, Government-Sponsored Land Giveaway Program For WhitesFrom 1862 to 1986, the United States government ran a homestead program that gave 2,992,058 white settlers and European immigrants (both documented and...

www.donaldwatkins.com

Stanford Login - Stale Request

kinginstitute.stanford.edu

At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land through an act of Congress our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest, which meant it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor. But not only did they give them land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm, and they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with, and this is the reality.

And yet, all too many act as though the United States government bears no obligation to address the systemic inequities to which it has directly and deliberately contributed.

To answer your first question, because I think the other funding sources will create more black empowerment and a stronger sense of pride within the community.

And no, funding won’t end with the term limits. The term limits that I describe are related to the government funding, not the funding from the alternate sources.

I’ve been consistent on these points.

The typical response from people like RustyShackleford is that private funding wouldn’t work.

So your issue isn't that qualifying Tennessee residents may luxuriate in a TANF benefit of $277 for a maximum of 60 months, but that, as a taxpayer, you're required to contribute to it?

And you, for reasons unknown, believe it would be more "empowering" if such assistance were not a human right or public entitlement, but entirely dependent on private largesse?

Is that accurate?

 

[KHUFU]

Stanford Login - Stale Request

kinginstitute.stanford.edu

And yet, all too many act as though the United States government bears no obligation to address the systemic inequities to which it has directly and deliberately contributed.



So your issue isn't that qualifying Tennessee residents may luxuriate in a TANF benefit of $277 for a maximum of 60 months, but that, as a taxpayer, you're required to contribute to it?

And you, for reasons unknown, believe it would be more "empowering" if such assistance were not a human right or public entitlement, but entirely dependent on private largesse?

Is that accurate?

You see it. Tell my man DWalk.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Bill is dressed like an NTer

Make those shorts full legged sweatpants and that is exactly the type of fit I can see Alp rocking on a random day in da Heights

 

[Nike Jordan]

Bill is dressed like an NTer

Make those shorts full legged sweatpants and that is exactly the type of fit I can see Alp rocking on a random day in da Heights

He did have that office on 125th Street.

 

[cragmatic]

You can’t make this stuff up... lol

 

[dwalk31]

So your issue isn't that qualifying Tennessee residents may luxuriate in a TANF benefit of $277 for a maximum of 60 months, but that, as a taxpayer, you're to contribute to it?

And you, for reasons unknown, believe it would be more "empowering" if such assistance were not a human right or public entitlement, but entirely dependent on private largesse?

Is that accurate?

That is inaccurate.

1. My discussion is not limited to TANF benefits. That isn’t even what we were discussing.TANF has term limits already. Not quite sure why you’ve brought it into the discussion.

2. I think it is more empowering when churches and donors pour into the local communities and I think that support coming from other black leaders would strengthen black empowerment and black community pride.

3. It has nothing to do with what I pay in taxes. Nothing about what I said reduces what I spend. It’s a discussion on where to direct funds and their funding sources. I would still pay taxes and contribute to organizations privately, as I do now.

4. Something can simultaneously be a human right and not fully funded by the government without term limits. Happens all the time.

5. I didn’t say entirely dependent on private funding, I stated term limits. So the discussion is about how long it is funded by the public prior to being funded by private organizations/donors. The term limits would be for each individual so the government funding doesn’t just end.

 

[sonoftony]

Supposedly Tucker planning to run in 2024

 

[hipstermike]

He’s already gone Orange in preparation

 

[IATT]

 

[wavycrocket]

Supposedly Tucker planning to run in 2024

Glenn Greenwald going to be his vp

 

[IATT]

Not the coach

 

[Nike Jordan]

Glenn Greenwald going to be his vp

He's gonna leave Brazil?

 

[Upptempo]

Not the coach

 

[Methodical Management]

Economic Anxiety bike like cooked crack


And she's the "progressive" on the show

It's not racist to yearn for "a time when white men were unequivocally on top of the national pecking order?"

This is the stuff I've been talking about, which we're expected to stomach for the sake of an assimilationist coalition that prioritizes and centers White grievance under the guise of labor.

That is inaccurate.

1. My discussion is not limited to TANF benefits. That isn’t even what we were discussing.TANF has term limits already. Not quite sure why you’ve brought it into the discussion.

You're not quite sure why we're talking about TANF in a discussion about welfare benefits? Really?

2. I think it is more empowering when churches and donors pour into the local communities and I think that support coming from other black leaders would strengthen black empowerment and black community pride.

Taken in concert with your claim that government needs to impose term limits on "welfare" (without specifying any particular programs), this sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting that the government is doing too much to address the inequities it has created, and Black leaders aren't doing enough.

Is there something wrong with government aid?

Maybe if you didn't support the least diverse administration in recent history we'd have more Black leaders in government.

3. It has nothing to do with what I pay in taxes. Nothing about what I said reduces what I spend. It’s a discussion on where to direct funds and their funding sources. I would still pay taxes and contribute to organizations privately, as I do now.

Taxes are required. Donations are not. It's kind of an important distinction.

Nonprofit contributions suffer at times when public assistance is most urgently needed.

The government will run unprecedented deficits to pay for COVID-19 relief on top of your precious Trump tax cuts.
Will your church go into debt to feed the poor?

A New Mission for Nonprofits During the Outbreak: Survival (Published 2020)

Upended by the coronavirus outbreak, nonprofits are laying off workers and seeking help from stretched donors.

www.nytimes.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/04/24/church-budgets-coronavirus-debt/

4. Something can simultaneously be a human right and not fully funded by the government without term limits. Happens all the time.

No child in the wealthiest society in the history of human civilization should go without food, shelter, and healthcare - if Bill Gates is feeling generous. Sounds "empowering."

5. I didn’t say entirely dependent on private funding, I stated term limits. So the discussion is about how long it is funded by the public prior to being funded by private organizations/donors. The term limits would be for each individual so the government funding doesn’t just end.

What, exactly, are you saying then?

Term limits on what? Government funding of what?

SNAP? TANF? Medicaid? SSI? The EITC? HCVP?

What, exactly, should be "transitioned" away from obligatory public funding and into voluntary private funding?

Which basic necessities should depend primarily upon the whims of the wealthy?

 

[storm2006]

Since Delk has a business and not a hobby, he should be worried. I’m sure it’s covered in his business plan, though.

 

[IATT]

 

[rexanglorum]

If you don’t have solidarity with each and every worker, including and especially the most marginalized workers, then I don’t have solidarity with you. So called “right populists” can piss off and anyone calling themselves a leftists who wants to work with them can do so as well.

Every worker includes: most white collar workers, artists, sex workers, grad students, unemployed people, imprisoned people, domestic workers, homeless people, fast food workers, most civil servants, documented immigrants, undocumented immigrants, housewives, parents on public assistance, home are workers, and anyone else who has labored in service of capital, directly or indirectly.

 

[IATT]

 

[whywesteppin]

wait. there's a real pandemic going on, but the turtle is worried about an imaginary "epidemic" (of lawsuits)? why not worry about the real pandemic first? did splinter teach him nothing?

 

[rexanglorum]