***Official Political Discussion Thread***

7,047
11,372
Joined Dec 13, 2018
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.





 
8,985
1,579
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Why?


Until you reach the term limit.
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 RustyShackleford is that private funding wouldn’t work.
 
5,908
13,062
Joined Aug 24, 2017
To be fair, the really poor people generally don’t vote. It’s more likely the white guy who really did have to work and sacrifice to eventually end up making a few dollars more than minimum wage, who is the one who votes Republican and is in full on last place avoidance mode and therefore needs women and LGBT and PoC and poor “burger flippers,” to look down upon.
they may not vote but the fear mongering 100% influences their perspective on current events. That's why they use social media to spread the facade that the "radical left" is coming for everything you own.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
43,800
98,272
Joined Jul 20, 2009
Economic Anxiety bike like cooked crack


And she's the "progressive" on the show
Krystal Ball and her are quickly gaining the Young Turks for title of most buffoonery on a leftist show.

She is seems like exactly the type of white person that will accept some white supremacy in exchange for some economic socialism.

How the hell can you spew that garbage in 2020 after it has been disproven over and over. Even worse, does she even realize how racist her so called alternative explanation is. White people yearning for a time when they were at the top of the pecking order is racist as hell. **** outta here with that Ball

This woman is not an ally to me.
 
Last edited:

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,408
21,195
Joined Dec 8, 1999
dog whistle.gif


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.





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 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?
 
7,047
11,372
Joined Dec 13, 2018
dog whistle.gif






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.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now