TRUMP SIGNS OFF ON REPARATIONS......for cacs
yall say trump winning but you didnt see trump doing that did you??@Soul On Ice @xfactor @VAiz4hustlaz @
not even IN office yet and he's already setting it up...
A Blueprint for Reparations
- Thread starter VAiz4hustlaz
- Start date
TRUMP SIGNS OFF ON REPARATIONS......for cacs
yall say trump winning but you didnt see trump doing that did you??@Soul On Ice @xfactor @VAiz4hustlaz @
not even IN office yet and he's already setting it up...
That's about white
Descendants of Slaves Could Receive Priority College Admission - Newsweek
A new bill introduced by California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan aims to give descendants of slaves priority for admission to the University of California and California State University.
The proposed legislation, which Bryan, a Democrat representing Los Angeles, will present to the state legislature, seeks to address historical inequalities and promote restorative justice for African Americans in California.
The bill comes while lawmakers prepare for a new session amid growing concerns over potential challenges to diversity initiatives under the incoming Trump administration.
Support for Reparations and Rectifying Past Wrongs
Bryan expressed hope that the bill would pass, aligning with recommendations from California's Black reparations task force. "We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs," Bryan said.He emphasized the need to address systemic injustices, noting that California had long provided preferential treatment in admissions to alumni children, often benefiting white and wealthy students while excluding those impacted by slavery and racial discrimination.
Assembly member Isaac Bryan, speaks on a bill at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Sept. 12, 2023. On Monday, Bryan said he will introduce a bill that would give admission priority to the descendants of... Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo
California's Attempts To Address Racial Inequality
The proposal follows a broader push for reparations in California, with Gov. Gavin Newsomsigning a formal apology for the state's history of racial discrimination.However, efforts to establish a reparations agency and create policies to assist Black families in reclaiming unjustly seized property have faced obstacles.
Bryan believes that repairing the harm caused by slavery and its lingering effects requires more than just cash payments, but also a comprehensive effort to heal societal inequalities.
Opposition to DEI Programs and Political Backdrop
The bill comes amid a conservative movement against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, which has gained traction in several states, including California.Critics argue that DEI programs are discriminatory, and Republican leaders have pushed for restrictions on such initiatives.
Children play outside Royce Hall at the University of California, Los Angeles, campus in Los Angeles, Aug. 15, 2024. On Monday, assembly member Isaac Bryan, a Democrat who represents parts of Los Angeles, said he... Damian Dovarganes/AP Photo
Bryan argues his proposal, however, is designed to combat historical exclusion rather than perpetuate new inequalities.
"When folks think about reparations, they think about just cash payments. But repairing the harm and the inequality that came from slavery and the policies thereafter is a much bigger process," Bryan said.
Bryan's measure will undergo a lengthy legislative process, and if passed, it could mark a significant step toward addressing racial disparities in higher education.
Despite recent political battles over reparations, including the rejection of a measure to amend the state constitution and ban forced prison labor, Bryan remains optimistic that change is possible.
"There's a growing understanding of California's role in perpetuating the inequalities that arose from slavery, and there's a willingness to try to rectify that harm, to heal that harm," he said.
Descendants of slaves could receive priority college admission
A new bill in California aims to give descendants of slaves priority for admission to the University of California and California State University.
www.newsweek.com
Republicans just won a permanent Senate majority
Kamala Harris’s defeat was damaging to the left. But her loss overshadows the true scope of the damage wrought on the Democratic Party: the permanent loss of the Senate.
Democrats have lost the Senate before, but this loss is different from 2014. This time, it may well be for good. For the first time in a century, there is not one Democratic senator from a reliably red state.
We have entered an era of one-party rule — at least where the Senate is concerned.
Today, the Senate map mirrors the national electoral divide. Democratic senators in blue states, Republican senators in red states, and swing states up for grabs. That’s grim news for Democrats. Simply put, there are more red states than blue states.
For decades, Democrats relied on popular Democratic senators in deep-red states — for example, Tom Daschle in South Dakota (lost in 2004), Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas (lost in 2010), Mary Landrieu in Louisiana (lost in 2014), Claire McCaskill in Missouri (lost in 2018), and Jon Tester in Montana (lost in 2024). In recent years, these red-state Democrats were critical to holding the Democratic majority.
The final nationalization of the Senate in 2024 with the ousting of Tester and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and the retirement of Joe Manchin in West Virginia, shifts the path to a Democratic Senate majority entirely to blue and purple states. This makes the Democrats’ task nearly impossible.
Republicans, in contrast, can compete in many more states. Even if Democrats sweep every swing state contest (and oust Susan Collins in Maine), they can win at most 52 seats in the Senate. That includes both seats in North Carolina. If Republicans were to win all the Senate seats in all of those same swing states, they would control 62 seats.
Considering that only a third of swing state seats will ever be up for election any given cycle, the odds of Democrats winning all 14 races are almost a statistical impossibility. Susan Collins’s hold on blue Maine makes the task even tougher.
There is a historical analog to this emerging phenomenon: the Permanent Democratic Congress. From 1954 through 1994, Democrats controlled the House for 40 out of 40 years, and 58 out of 62 years until 1994. Only recently have we entered an era of congressional oscillation between parties, an era that came to an end this November.
This new permanent Republican Senate has three profound consequences for the Democratic Party and the institution of the Senate.
First, any incoming Democratic president will enter the White House with a severe handicap, limiting the enactment of broad campaign promises. Instead of enjoying a mandate reflected by majorities in Congress, the far likelier scenario is a Democratic president immediately vying against a confident and combative Republican Senate. Any partisan campaign promise — from a public option to progressive tax reform — is dead on arrival. The same hostility President Obama faced after losing the Senate in 2014 will be the presumptive landscape.
The implications for effective governance are severe: structural reforms would be almost unattainable, further entrenching the perception of dysfunction in Washington. For the Democratic Party, the consequences are graver: this hyper-gridlock would be inextricably linked to Democratic presidencies, deepening voter disillusionment during their time in power.
Republicans no longer have any incentive to confirm Democratic judicial nominees, knowing a Republican-controlled Senate can outwait a Democratic president.
The precedent for this is very recent: Merrick Garland. Republicans opted not to vote on a lame duck Democratic president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, betting on the chance to confirm a Republican nominee instead. Now, it’s more than a gamble; it’s a near certainty. With the presidency likely to continue teetering between the parties, Republicans only need to hold out until the next Republican presidency. As long as the current political geography remains, there is no risk of a new Democratic president backed by a Democratic Senate to swiftly fill judicial vacancies.
Under this new norm, Republicans can mold the judiciary in their ideological image, without fear that Democrats will rebalance it. If a vacancy does open on the Supreme Court during a Democratic presidency, Republicans wouldn’t need to rush to fill it: they would maintain a comfortable conservative majority even with the vacancy, albeit 5-3 instead of 6-3. If Republicans continue this stonewalling during Democratic presidencies, with their new permanent hold on the Senate, the Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority may become 7-2, 8-1, and eventually 9-0.
The filibuster derives its power from the majority party’s recognition that someday soon, they will likely find themselves in the minority. When that day comes, the filibuster will be a valuable asset ensuring the minority’s perspective is heard.
But the filibuster’s threat and power hinge on the shared belief that each party will eventually rotate in and out of the majority. In the new age ushered in by the 2024 elections, Republicans have little reason to believe Democrats will take the Senate back anytime soon.
Without any realistic fear of losing their majority, Republicans have no further use for the filibuster. Rather than serving as a safeguard, it now only stands in their way. It no longer provides commensurate prospective protection. Both parties have already weakened the filibuster through the Nuclear Option when it suited their needs and the benefits outweighed the backlash.
Given this and President-elect Trump’s firm grip on the GOP and his eagerness to push through his agenda, the filibuster’s days are numbered.
All you fuck the democrats/DONT VOTE people better hope this piece isnt true cause if it is..then reparations on federal level is less than a fantasy.
Kamala Harris’s defeat was damaging to the left. But her loss overshadows the true scope of the damage wrought on the Democratic Party: the permanent loss of the Senate.
Democrats have lost the Senate before, but this loss is different from 2014. This time, it may well be for good. For the first time in a century, there is not one Democratic senator from a reliably red state.
We have entered an era of one-party rule — at least where the Senate is concerned.
Today, the Senate map mirrors the national electoral divide. Democratic senators in blue states, Republican senators in red states, and swing states up for grabs. That’s grim news for Democrats. Simply put, there are more red states than blue states.
For decades, Democrats relied on popular Democratic senators in deep-red states — for example, Tom Daschle in South Dakota (lost in 2004), Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas (lost in 2010), Mary Landrieu in Louisiana (lost in 2014), Claire McCaskill in Missouri (lost in 2018), and Jon Tester in Montana (lost in 2024). In recent years, these red-state Democrats were critical to holding the Democratic majority.
The final nationalization of the Senate in 2024 with the ousting of Tester and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and the retirement of Joe Manchin in West Virginia, shifts the path to a Democratic Senate majority entirely to blue and purple states. This makes the Democrats’ task nearly impossible.
Republicans, in contrast, can compete in many more states. Even if Democrats sweep every swing state contest (and oust Susan Collins in Maine), they can win at most 52 seats in the Senate. That includes both seats in North Carolina. If Republicans were to win all the Senate seats in all of those same swing states, they would control 62 seats.
Considering that only a third of swing state seats will ever be up for election any given cycle, the odds of Democrats winning all 14 races are almost a statistical impossibility. Susan Collins’s hold on blue Maine makes the task even tougher.
There is a historical analog to this emerging phenomenon: the Permanent Democratic Congress. From 1954 through 1994, Democrats controlled the House for 40 out of 40 years, and 58 out of 62 years until 1994. Only recently have we entered an era of congressional oscillation between parties, an era that came to an end this November.
This new permanent Republican Senate has three profound consequences for the Democratic Party and the institution of the Senate.
First, any incoming Democratic president will enter the White House with a severe handicap, limiting the enactment of broad campaign promises. Instead of enjoying a mandate reflected by majorities in Congress, the far likelier scenario is a Democratic president immediately vying against a confident and combative Republican Senate. Any partisan campaign promise — from a public option to progressive tax reform — is dead on arrival. The same hostility President Obama faced after losing the Senate in 2014 will be the presumptive landscape.
The implications for effective governance are severe: structural reforms would be almost unattainable, further entrenching the perception of dysfunction in Washington. For the Democratic Party, the consequences are graver: this hyper-gridlock would be inextricably linked to Democratic presidencies, deepening voter disillusionment during their time in power.
Republicans no longer have any incentive to confirm Democratic judicial nominees, knowing a Republican-controlled Senate can outwait a Democratic president.
The precedent for this is very recent: Merrick Garland. Republicans opted not to vote on a lame duck Democratic president’s nominee to the Supreme Court, betting on the chance to confirm a Republican nominee instead. Now, it’s more than a gamble; it’s a near certainty. With the presidency likely to continue teetering between the parties, Republicans only need to hold out until the next Republican presidency. As long as the current political geography remains, there is no risk of a new Democratic president backed by a Democratic Senate to swiftly fill judicial vacancies.
Under this new norm, Republicans can mold the judiciary in their ideological image, without fear that Democrats will rebalance it. If a vacancy does open on the Supreme Court during a Democratic presidency, Republicans wouldn’t need to rush to fill it: they would maintain a comfortable conservative majority even with the vacancy, albeit 5-3 instead of 6-3. If Republicans continue this stonewalling during Democratic presidencies, with their new permanent hold on the Senate, the Supreme Court’s conservative 6-3 majority may become 7-2, 8-1, and eventually 9-0.
The filibuster derives its power from the majority party’s recognition that someday soon, they will likely find themselves in the minority. When that day comes, the filibuster will be a valuable asset ensuring the minority’s perspective is heard.
But the filibuster’s threat and power hinge on the shared belief that each party will eventually rotate in and out of the majority. In the new age ushered in by the 2024 elections, Republicans have little reason to believe Democrats will take the Senate back anytime soon.
Without any realistic fear of losing their majority, Republicans have no further use for the filibuster. Rather than serving as a safeguard, it now only stands in their way. It no longer provides commensurate prospective protection. Both parties have already weakened the filibuster through the Nuclear Option when it suited their needs and the benefits outweighed the backlash.
Given this and President-elect Trump’s firm grip on the GOP and his eagerness to push through his agenda, the filibuster’s days are numbered.
All you fuck the democrats/DONT VOTE people better hope this piece isnt true cause if it is..then reparations on federal level is less than a fantasy.
^^^ He really think he deep ^^^
But is one of the dumbest densest wannabe intellect we have on this board, which is very hard to do
But is one of the dumbest densest wannabe intellect we have on this board, which is very hard to do
dont be mad at me...I didnt write the article... is it wrong if so how??
^^^^^^
^^^^^^
The Demoshills NEVER address this paradox! Black people have consistently voted overwhelmingly Democratic, and even when there have been Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democratic president, what serious attempts were made to initiate reparations legislation or establish a reparations program???
Well you made your point and got your wish...Dems are out of the picture. And if there's any validity to that article may be out of power in the Senate for a long time....soo what are the chances of the reparations agenda moving forward in that reality?
Progress on the issue may have been at a glacial pace but there was progress..hell your documenting it as it's happening. But in this maga era all that progress stops cold.
Please tell us what party you see taking up the issue and getting it thru other than the Dems?
The green party? How much traction have they gotten over the last two decades?
How many other political figures do you see who aren't democrats making splash with this particular issue on the national stage??
How many politicians other than democrats have even spearheaded bringing a bill to either the house or Senate or even on the floor of their state houses??
Progress on the issue may have been at a glacial pace but there was progress..hell your documenting it as it's happening. But in this maga era all that progress stops cold.
Please tell us what party you see taking up the issue and getting it thru other than the Dems?
The green party? How much traction have they gotten over the last two decades?
How many other political figures do you see who aren't democrats making splash with this particular issue on the national stage??
How many politicians other than democrats have even spearheaded bringing a bill to either the house or Senate or even on the floor of their state houses??
Last edited:
Blacks have lost $150 billion in equity due to biased home appraisals
In Black neighborhoods with large shares of homeowners, homes were undervalued by 47% compared to similar homes in white neighborhoods with no Black borrowers.
For most consumers, buying a home is the single-largest investment of their life-times. But for Black America, home equity – the increase in market value from the time of purchase - is often the dominant, if not sole source of wealth-building.
Home equity represents 65 percent of all Black wealth, according to the nation’s oldest minority professional trade association, National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB).
Yet the unfortunate reality for Black home- owners, according to NAREB is that systemic discrimination used in appraisals that determine home fair market values all too often perpetuate – instead of narrow – racial wealth gaps, for homeowners and buyers alike.
These mandatory reports are a key factor used by lenders to reach decisions on loan applications to purchase, sell or improve homes.
Home Appraisals in Black and White, a new NAREB research report, examines disparities in the estimated value of homes by racial neighborhood composition.
Analyzing housing data from 2021 and 2023, its two authors James H. Carr and his colleague, Michela Zonta, both housing finance and urban policy experts, reached a startling finding: Blacks have lost $150 billion in home equity due to biased home appraisals.
According to Courtney Johnson Rose, NAREB president, “For decades, the undervaluing of property in African American neighborhoods has contributed to the expansive Black-White wealth gap in America, a spread so expansive that the 400 wealthiest Americans control the same wealth as all 48 million Blacks.”
Florida cities included
In Black neighborhoods with large shares of homeowners, homes were undervalued by 47 percent, compared to similar homes in White neighborhoods with no Black borrowers.These lower property values prevent Black families from building and earning comparable wealth via home equity than similarly situated white neighborhood homeowners, and additionally suppresses the ability of Black homeowners to develop intergenerational wealth.
The report also pinpoints where these disparities are widest.
“The percentage difference or median Black appraisal undervaluation price gap (relative to homes in White communities) ranges from 10 percent in Houston to 48 percent in Los Angeles,” states the report.
“In Los Angeles, the median appraised value of homes in Black neighborhoods is $618,532 compared to $1,179,640 in white neighborhoods, after controlling for home and neighborhood characteristics. This translates into an appraisal value underestimation gap of $561,108 for homes in Black neighborhoods.”
Other metro areas where median appraised home under- valuation gaps are larger than the national average include Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Memphis, Miami, Orlando, Richmond, St. Louis, and Tampa.
HBCU pilot program
In theory home appraisals are supposed to be an objective assessment of a variety of factors like the number and size of rooms, quality of construction, types, and conditions of major home systems, presence of renovations or upgrades, property location, and community amenities and services.But in reality, these reports are more likely to be developed by someone who lives in another area and is likely a different race or ethnicity. Today, the home appraisal sector in real estate remains nearly all white, despite long-standing federal laws like the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
“Appraisal bias is an issue that has economic implications on the generational wealth of minorities at all spectrums of the socio-economic scale,” notes Brian Cox, president of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers (NSREA), a NA- REB affiliate. “In addition, the disproportionate minority participation in the appraisal profession is estimated at 3% of a total population of approximately 70,000 appraisers and valuation professionals.”
In direct response to these disturbing findings, a pilot program focused on transforming the appraisal market and its professionals was launched in July at Fayetteville State University, a North Carolina HBCU. Drawing upon students, faculty, staff, active military,
veterans and local community members the program’s goal is to develop “a pipeline of residential and commercial appraisers.”
“We are thrilled to offer this opportunity providing a pathway for FSU students, faculty and staff, active-duty military and veterans and our local community to join a lucrative industry,” said Marcus Cox, Ph.D., dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. “This partnership doesn’t only bode well for FSU, it also enhances Fayetteville’s local community and potentially our entire region.”
NAREB’s report also endorses the effort and its potential growth.
“The Black Appraisers program aims to increase the representation of Black professionals in the appraisal industry, advocate for fair appraisal practices, and enhance awareness of appraisal bias,” states the report. “The initiative will form partnerships with and seek to attract participants from the military veterans’ community and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).
Appraisal mentorships and apprenticeships will be a core aspect of recruitment and training for this initiative.”
I wonder of that program falls under the DEI/Equity policy that Trump takes issue with and finds problematic and racist?
cause if it does HBCUs may find their funding slashed simply for doing the program because it COULD be perceived, ironically, as racist in itself.
just askin a question..
REPARATIONS
President Trump must direct Congress to propose and deliver to his desk a federally led and administered Reparations package that identifies a definite start date with no fixed ending date. President Trump must commit to seeing the Act faithfully executed. At minimum, the Reparations package should prioritize cash payments totaling $20 trillion to American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS). Together with targeted policies and protections, the redistributive measures will be ongoing and must remain in effect until—at the very least—the wealth gap between white Americans and ADOS is closed.ETHNIC DESIGNATION & PROTECTION
Taking into account the absence of reparations for chattel slavery, and the presence of the accrued cost of its brutal, 400-year legacy, the descendants of chattel slavery in the U.S. have been made to inherit a singular disadvantage in national life. The Trump administration, by executive fiat, must designate descendants of chattel slavery in the United States as a protected class. The ethnic designation should accord with the criteria outlined in our presentation to the Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, any future studies or data collection by the U.S. government must disaggregate ADOS from the rest of the American population so that the specific needs of ADOS communities can be accurately quantified and addressed by targeted policies and investments.President Trump must call on Congress to create an Office of ADOS Affairs that will specifically advocate for the needs of ADOS people. The President must also charge the Office with creating a genealogy registry that will provide resources for ADOS people who wish to trace their ancestry to establish eligibility for slavery Reparations. The Office must also be charged with the collection of information and studies regarding stolen wealth by way of the destruction of Black businesses, stolen intellectual property, predatory lending, and the redlining of housing and insurance policies. Should Congress fail to act, President Trump must create the Office by executive order.
Reparations » The ADOS Advocacy Foundation
President Biden must direct Congress to propose and deliver a federally led Reparations package identifying a definite start date with no fixed end date.
www.adosfoundation.org
Using Urban Renewal Records to Advance Reparative Justice
Ann Pfau, Kathleen Lawlor, David Hochfelder, Stacy Kinlock SewellRSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences June 2024, 10 (2) 113-131; DOI: https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2024.10.2.05
Abstract
By describing how the federal urban renewal program harmed displaced tenants and property owners, this article intends to encourage discussion of potential remedies by study groups, commissions, and community activists. In addition to loss of property, these harms include inadequate reimbursement payments, diminished business and rental income, and higher post-relocation housing costs. Using Kingston and Newburgh, New York, and Asheville, North Carolina, as case studies, the article demonstrates how researchers can document the need for reparative justice policies using historical data drawn from local archival collections.
its begun...
Well we're going to see how those moderate republicans respond to black constituents when they approach them about reparations....
@Soul On Ice