Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [TimeIsUp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
color me impressed!

what book did you read upon my recommendation if i may ask?

also. Doris K Goodwin's book on LBJ and the Great Society is her first work. It's really a work of passion and she wrote much better later in life as a historian---such as in "Team of Rivals" but this one was from her heart.

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:
So with the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent on Great Society legislation---entirely to help/aide/transform the lives of Black Americans. How're we doing. Is it enough?

You can keep repeating this lie as often as you would like to. The majority of the money that has been spent on Great Society legislation has gone to White Americans.

Scapegoating black people is inaccurate and lazy. Do better. Or keep telling lies. Your choice.
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:
color me impressed!

what book did you read upon my recommendation if i may ask?

also. Doris K Goodwin's book on LBJ and the Great Society is her first work. It's really a work of passion and she wrote much better later in life as a historian---such as in "Team of Rivals" but this one was from her heart.

Relentless Strike. If memory serves, someone else recommended and you said it was indeed a good read and you were surprised the author had access to some of the material.
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [TimeIsUp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ok Thanks for response

Yes. That's a good book and I am indeed surprised at some of the info the author puts out. My understanding from being "read on" to various programs is that I'd have been sent to Leavenworth were i to have said some of the things he said?

I hint around here about working for "guys I used to know" My understanding is I'll go to jail should I be specific or speak with specificity on some of the missions we did. How Sean Naylor got away with revealing much of this is something of a mystery to me?

Hope you enjoyed the read and learned something along the journey

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
waytooslow wrote:
It's called the

The Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act



Yes and no. There's a Senate bill (S.278) by that name that got assigned to committee back in February. But it's not what was voted on.

The bill being put on the President's desk is called the "American Rescue Plan Act of 2021."

Sections 1005 and 1006 appear to have been - in part - lifted from the draft of S.278, but the term "Farmers of Color" is gone, replaced with "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" (a term which apparently existed before this bill was drafted).

How do they define "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" . Is there any objective test? Do they define a criteria in the bill?

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [spockwaslen] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spockwaslen wrote:
How do they define "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" . Is there any objective test? Do they define a criteria in the bill?

RTFB!

It's defined in USC 2279. Still kind of vague in that law. But it's law that's been in effect for over a decade (with changes along the way) - the point being that they didn't just make up the term this month.
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:
God damnit I am a socially disadvantaged farmer.

Socially disadvantaged checks out for you.

You're also a veteran, so could qualify for the provisions that help veteran farmers.

You'll need to build a new receiving dock for the Brinks trucks they're going to be backing onto your property.
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
spockwaslen wrote:

How do they define "Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers" . Is there any objective test? Do they define a criteria in the bill?


RTFB!

It's defined in USC 2279. Still kind of vague in that law. But it's law that's been in effect for over a decade (with changes along the way) - the point being that they didn't just make up the term this month.


Well at least I have learned what RTFB is. Reading the definition it is pretty vague. Maybe we could refine it as people who feel they have been hard done by. Kinda subjective. At least with aboriginal one can go back and have some quasi objective criteria. I don't know how the blunt instrument that is the US gov't feels they can fix things under these kind of rubrics. As we have seen in another thread about unemployment cheques they can't even identify it they are paying money to real people.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Last edited by: spockwaslen: Mar 11, 21 12:08
Quote Reply
Re: Slavery Repetitions - The dem's plan to win in 2020 [Steve Hawley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Steve Hawley wrote:


Of course Great Society Legislation was designed almost entirely to repair or restore the lives of Black Americans. I didn't address it in my post as it's entirely transparent to the casual observer.

1) Great Society Legislation fell short because LBJ failed in Viet Nam. That was and is Doris K-G's thesis. Anything else and you (or me) is reading what we want to read.
2) Conflating Great Society Legislation with the Civil Rights Acts was important for Nixon success in the 68 election. This is the southern strategy in a nutshell. Dismantle social legislation by implying it unfairly provides economic benefit to minorities.
3) In case you doubt point two, one only needs to look at what you've posted on this thread. You feel the easiest way to make your point is to point out how unfair it is to you as a white person. As others have said, the actual numbers don't support your hypothetisis.
Quote Reply

Prev Next