Pigford Decision?

Nmysys wrote: So you agree that this is reparations in disguise? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't reparations meant to pay for the abuse that was called slavery?

Is there anyone alive today that was a slave? Can there be any doubt that those who live in the USA today as a result of their ancestors having been sold into slavery by other Africans, are in a better position overall than if there ancestors were not?

Do any of them wish to move back to their ancestral home?

Why, when this country is on the brink of bankruptcy is this an important issue to address instead of job creation? Or concerns about N. Korea's threats, or Iran, as a nuclear superpower and threat to our ally Israel?

This is just another example of the Progressive agenda being shoved down our throats and our resident idiot LJ cries over the needy children that need their free lunches that this clearly is stating should be cut, in order to address this important issue.

SC:

I am glad someone is willing to address this issue, but you are too damn logical about these issues. LOL and therefore there is no argument, just questions of you.

The only argument I have is the difference between us as to which budget should be cut. I don't think we can afford to cut anything in the defense budget, especially considering our status in this world today. I think we should eliminate all the wasteful spending in everything in our budget, including but not limited to the PORKULUS bullsh** that the House just voted against cutting.

Too logical - thank you! Questions of me? Which questions may I ask?

This isn't reparations for slavery, this is reparations for obvious discrimination that occurred and caused many black farmers to lose their farms due to unfair approval of loans. This legislation was started before the current economic downturn, and it was bipartisan in effort so you can't blame it on Progressives; it's not like the poor timing was planned, but it can be afforded if cuts are made (not that I'm condoning spending cuts on this, mind you, b/c I think there are better things to spend money on right now than this, but unfortunately, I'm not in charge).

Now, as to the cuts, I don't see the problem.
http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/ ... ng-passes/

The over $4 billion price tag for the combined measure, including $1.15 billion for Pigford II, was fully offset by extending custom user fees and anti-dumping duties, making program integrity changes to unemployment insurance, and rescinding surpluses from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program.

Regardless of that, and this is probably a topic for another thread, you wouldn't make any cuts to the defense budget??? Despite the fact that it's been documented that they have wasted hundreds of millions, or even trillions, overpaying subcontractors, mismanaging money and contracts, and buying equipment that the DOD didn't even order? I thought you were all about eliminating waste from our deficit?
From 2003: http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-05-18/n ... accounting
From 2006: http://www.management.energy.gov/docume ... 06838r.pdf
Fro 2010: http://sftt.org/2010/05/26/dod-m2-heavy-machine-gun/

And there are many, many more
http://www.pogo.org/investigations/nati ... nding.html
Project on Government Oversight
POGO is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government.

Sorry, but if you want to reduce the deficit, you can't blindly save a program that has a history of abuse, poor management, and wasteful/fraudulent spending like the DOD - clean it up and make it efficient and use that extra money where it's needed more.

Nmysys wrote: The only argument I have is the difference between us as to which budget should be cut. I don't think we can afford to cut anything in the defense budget, especially considering our status in this world today. I think we should eliminate all the wasteful spending in everything in our budget, including but not limited to the PORKULUS bullsh** that the House just voted against cutting.

Interesting observation - I responded to your difference in opinion on the defense budget, but you avoided/ignored it. Isn't that what you accuse us libs of "always" doing?

Nmysys wrote: They are just creating more ways to spend more money and destroy this country. How long can they keep printing money, give it away?

You yourself pointed out that this was coming from WIC so why would you say this now? Again, they have fully covered the budget for this program with spending cuts - no new money needs to be printed to pay for it. I know it's hard to separate one program from another that you disagree with, but in this case they are not borrowing or playing funny economics.

The bottom line is that we won't accept the idea of spreading the wealth under that title, so they create other ways of accomplishing the same goal. Take it from those who earned it and are hoarding it and give it to those poor people who couldn't have it before because they were discriminated against ( couldn't qualify for it ) , black farmers, now includes anyone who ever planted a tomato in their yard, Hispanic Farmers, those who picked the fruit for minimum wage, women farmers. Anyone deserve this spreading of the wealth?

While I wouldn't label it "spreading the wealth" so much as I would call it attempting to compensate for past mistakes, I agree that this program, and the others for Hispanics and women are a mistake. It will be too difficult and expensive to go through each case and find incontrovertible proof that they were denied a loan b/c of race or gender instead of a perfectly valid reason like they were likely to default due to their financial history. RT, it is not incorrect that there wasn't obvious discrimination - it has been documented. I'm not saying that every claim is valid, but to say that every claim is invalid is naive on your part. The continued support of the idea that we must financially pay for past mistakes is a slippery slope and an inefficient way to fix wrongs - we should be making sure that discriminatory practices aren't continuing today (which just a couple of years ago banks such as WellsFargo were slapped with huge fines b/c it was found that they were deliberately targeting minorities for riskier, no-interest loans) and are less likely to happen in the future. Looking backwards is not the way to improve our country, nor does it correct the issue from happening again.

But that's beyond illogical - it makes no sense. Do you want to cut waste or not? Did you even read any of the links I posted? Like this one? http://sftt.org/2010/05/26/dod-m2-heavy-machine-gun/
Soldiers For The Truth

SFTT has reviewed a recent DoDIG report (Department of Defense Inspector General) that documents yet more absolutely blithering incompetence inside the multi-billion dollar DoD Procurement bureaucracy. The issue in this case is spare parts for the M2 .50-caliber Heavy Machine Gun (“HMG”), better known as “Ma Duece” by those who rely upon it to reach out and “touch” Jihad Johnny in a memorable way.
This DoD IG investigation was kicked off by field reports of slow-to-no response for critical spare parts needed to keep their M2’s in “lethal” condition. When DoD IG inspectors looked into cited complaints, they found a level of incompetence that would be laughable were it not for the reality that these M2’s are life-saving to our troops and death-dealing to our enemy when they are fully functioning.
* Contractors provided at least 7,100 non-conforming parts on 24 contracts.
* DLA did not adequately process 95 of 127 product quality deficiency reports.
* DLA did not deliver 60 spare part kits on time to support a U.S. Army program to overhaul 2,600 M2 machine guns and provided non-conforming parts in kits.
* DLA did not pursue adequate compensation from contractors who were significantly late in providing critical parts on 49 contracts.
As a result,
# the Government spent at least $655,000 in funds that could have been put to better use.
# DLA missed an opportunity to obtain approximately $405,000 in contractor compensation for late deliveries.

Using the excuse that the world is so turbulent is crap - if we'd stop sticking our noses where it doesn't belong, creating our own messes, building bases and staffing them in 80 countries around the world, then maybe we wouldn't have to spend so d@^n much. But now that I've said that, I'm sure that you'll focus on this sentence instead of what I posted above and we'll get nowhere. Sigh.