Reparations anyone?

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Name magic. Modern Democrats share nothing with the pre-civil war party of 160 years ago..

It sounds like you don't think modern democrats should be held accountable for what Democrats did 160 years ago. It begs the question, then: Why would you be in favor of the ones today paying reparations?

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

It sounds like you don't think modern democrats should be held accountable for what Democrats did 160 years ago. It begs the question, then: Why would you be in favor of the ones today paying reparations?

Won't speak for DQ, but generally speaking it's WAG, the kind the lets one feel better about oneself.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by nailer

Won't speak for DQ, but generally speaking it's WAG, the kind the lets one feel better about oneself.

What's WAG?

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

What's WAG?

The definition I go with is idle, indiscreet chatter.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by mpholland

The definition I go with is idle, indiscreet chatter.

That would be IIC.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by nailer

That would be IIC.

Not according to Webster.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Not according to Webster.

You were referencing a factor impacting sound reinforcement decision?

Added bold to the your post I quoted. Hope this helps clear up your confusion.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

What's WAG?

Usual expansion is 'wild ass guess.' Means an estimate even more poorly-based than usual.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

What's WAG?

White American Guilt

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

It sounds like you don't think modern democrats should be held accountable for what Democrats did 160 years ago. It begs the question, then: Why would you be in favor of the ones today paying reparations?

I don't recall saying I was in favor of paying reparations. While some still reap tangible benefits from slavery, while others have inherited the harm of it, I think we'd have much more of a unified and happy society if all on the bottom were better-cared-for, with investments and a robust safety net. Capital must be for everyone in a healthy capitalist economy.

The redistribution program outlined on the wealth-to-scale presentation is mainly good for getting an appreciation of what sort of concentration now exists, and the scale of possible alternatives. I would favor some different investments from their sample program. One line item would be big endowments on the state and local level to replace, for example, property tax funding of schools.