Social Justice Black Lives Matter Discussion Thread
- Thread starter PriestTheyCalledHim
- Start date
dalpat077
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2019
- Messages
- 3,091
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Google "Oakland 59000" and see what you get regarding their new basic income plan to give $500/mo to families earning under $59,000 annually.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced this week that the city will launch a guaranteed income project to give hundreds of Black and Indigenous families and people of color $500 per month for 18 months.
The project's payments will be unconditional, and recipients may spend the money however they choose.
...
The project targets groups with the city's greatest wealth disparities, per the Oakland Equality Index, which reveals the median income for White households in Oakland to be nearly three times that of Black households.
"The poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure," Schaaf said in a statement. "Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity and economic mobility we've seen in decades."
Guaranteed income is different from Universal Basic Income (UBI), which would provide enough income to meet everyone's basic needs.
Instead, guaranteed income is only meant to supplement other wages and programs for low-income residents, helping to build the "income floor" on which people in poverty can begin to build financially secure lives.
But half of the available spots will be reserved for very low-income families -- those who earn below 138% of the federal poverty level -- or, about $30,000 per year for a family of three.
An online, multilingual screening form will be released later this spring and summer, after which families will be chosen at random to receive the payments. The program is also open to undocumented and/or unsheltered families. Because recipients will not be required to work for the payments, the money is not considered taxable income.
A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.
The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.
According to data from an Oakland Equity Indicators Report, cited by officials to justify favoring people of color, white households earn about three times that of African-American ones.
The same report states around 8 per cent of the city's white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.
This caught my eye (via right lean media) because of excluding whites. Reading it further, I'm a bit torn - it is an experiment (18mo only only 600 families, 50% to families earning under $30k), so in that sense it is a targeted group and local gov't wants to see how it goes. But I really can't see their justification to exclude whites. They say the average income for whites is 3x that of other races, but articles also state 8% of the city's white residents live in poverty. Why not let the experiment also include those white families (it's a lottery system on who gets the $500 for the 18mo). Use it to see if the poor whites to any better or worse in the program, leverage the opportunity to truly run an experiment with those IN NEED.
I'm generally against the welfare approach, but for an experiment I'd like to see how it goes. I am firmly against using race as a criteria for eligibility, to me that is both pandering AND racist by definition. Do it based on NEED.
Oakland to give low-income residents $500 a month, no ...
The mayor of Oakland, California, on Tuesday announced a privately funded program that will give low-income families of color in the city $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it.
The program is the latest experiment with a "guaranteed income," the idea that giving low-income individuals a regular, monthly stipend helps ease the stresses of poverty and results in better health and upward economic mobility.
The idea isn't new, but it's having a revival across the U.S. after some mayors launched smaller scale pilot programs across the country in a coordinated campaign to convince Congress to adopt a national guaranteed income program.
The first program launched in 2019 in Stockton, California, led by former Mayor Michael Tubbs. Tubbs, who later founded the group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, expects six other cities to launch similar programs by this summer.
An analysis of the first year of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) found that compared to a control group, residents who received regular payments experienced less income volatility, secured more full-time employment, were better parents and partners, and even saw improvements in their health and overall well-being.
The "Oakland Resilient Families" program has so far raised $6.75 million from private donors including Blue Meridian Partners, a national philanthropy group. To be eligible, individuals must have at least one child under the age 18 and an income that is at or below 50% of the area median income — about $59,000 per year for a family of three.
Half the spots are reserved for people who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 per year for a family of three. Participants will be randomly selected from a pool of applicants who meet the eligibility requirements.
The reason: White households in Oakland on average make about three times as much annually than black households, according to the Oakland Equity Index. It's also a nod to the legacy of the Black Panther Party, the political movement that was founded in Oakland in the 1960s.
The program is the latest experiment with a "guaranteed income," the idea that giving low-income individuals a regular, monthly stipend helps ease the stresses of poverty and results in better health and upward economic mobility.
The idea isn't new, but it's having a revival across the U.S. after some mayors launched smaller scale pilot programs across the country in a coordinated campaign to convince Congress to adopt a national guaranteed income program.
The first program launched in 2019 in Stockton, California, led by former Mayor Michael Tubbs. Tubbs, who later founded the group Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, expects six other cities to launch similar programs by this summer.
An analysis of the first year of the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration (SEED) found that compared to a control group, residents who received regular payments experienced less income volatility, secured more full-time employment, were better parents and partners, and even saw improvements in their health and overall well-being.
The "Oakland Resilient Families" program has so far raised $6.75 million from private donors including Blue Meridian Partners, a national philanthropy group. To be eligible, individuals must have at least one child under the age 18 and an income that is at or below 50% of the area median income — about $59,000 per year for a family of three.
Half the spots are reserved for people who earn less than 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 per year for a family of three. Participants will be randomly selected from a pool of applicants who meet the eligibility requirements.
Local people of color only
Oakland's project is significant because it is one of the largest efforts in the U.S. so far, targeting up to 600 families. And it is the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities.The reason: White households in Oakland on average make about three times as much annually than black households, according to the Oakland Equity Index. It's also a nod to the legacy of the Black Panther Party, the political movement that was founded in Oakland in the 1960s.
Oakland to give low-income Black, Indigenous families $500 ...
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced this week that the city will launch a guaranteed income project to give hundreds of Black and Indigenous families and people of color $500 per month for 18 months.
The project's payments will be unconditional, and recipients may spend the money however they choose.
...
The project targets groups with the city's greatest wealth disparities, per the Oakland Equality Index, which reveals the median income for White households in Oakland to be nearly three times that of Black households.
"The poverty we all witness today is not a personal failure, it is a systems failure," Schaaf said in a statement. "Guaranteed income is one of the most promising tools for systems change, racial equity and economic mobility we've seen in decades."
Guaranteed income is different from Universal Basic Income (UBI), which would provide enough income to meet everyone's basic needs.
Instead, guaranteed income is only meant to supplement other wages and programs for low-income residents, helping to build the "income floor" on which people in poverty can begin to build financially secure lives.
Who is eligible?
To qualify for the Oakland Resilient Families payments, families must have at least one child under 18. Their income must be at or below the area's median income: around $59,000 for a family of three.But half of the available spots will be reserved for very low-income families -- those who earn below 138% of the federal poverty level -- or, about $30,000 per year for a family of three.
An online, multilingual screening form will be released later this spring and summer, after which families will be chosen at random to receive the payments. The program is also open to undocumented and/or unsheltered families. Because recipients will not be required to work for the payments, the money is not considered taxable income.
Oakland, California, will exclude white families living in ...
City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month if they earn under $59,000 with no rules on how they spend it - but offering poor white families nothing
- Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf announced race-based program to give families of color $500 monthly checks
- Half of the $500 grants will be to families earning under $30,000, in the predominantly 'BIPOC' East Oakland area
- The program, funded by wealthy private donors, explicitly excludes poor white families
- An estimated 10,000 of Oakland's 435,000 population are white residents who live in poverty, defined by earning less than $12,880
- Many of the wealthy white city residents are 'young transplants', who move to the Bay Area for high paying jobs in tech and finance
A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.
The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.
According to data from an Oakland Equity Indicators Report, cited by officials to justify favoring people of color, white households earn about three times that of African-American ones.
The same report states around 8 per cent of the city's white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.
This caught my eye (via right lean media) because of excluding whites. Reading it further, I'm a bit torn - it is an experiment (18mo only only 600 families, 50% to families earning under $30k), so in that sense it is a targeted group and local gov't wants to see how it goes. But I really can't see their justification to exclude whites. They say the average income for whites is 3x that of other races, but articles also state 8% of the city's white residents live in poverty. Why not let the experiment also include those white families (it's a lottery system on who gets the $500 for the 18mo). Use it to see if the poor whites to any better or worse in the program, leverage the opportunity to truly run an experiment with those IN NEED.
I'm generally against the welfare approach, but for an experiment I'd like to see how it goes. I am firmly against using race as a criteria for eligibility, to me that is both pandering AND racist by definition. Do it based on NEED.
Criminals. It’s infuriating as someone that served 20 years in the military this is the first time I’ve actually been ashamed of this country. I grew up patriotic and my dad was career military as well and it’s sad to see his reaction to all the crap going on I know he feels the same way. BLM and antifa where rioting and destroying crap for 8 months prior to the capital riots and politicians didn’t say crap. The right riots one time and all hell brakes loose. Seeing old white couples being cornered by entitled privileged young black people that believe they’re victims and see them bully them into doing crap makes my blood boil.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
TheLoveBandit said:
As Jess Lee Peterson says: Amazin'
Burnt Offerings
Bluelight Crew
Yeah I'm against using race as any sort of qualifying factor as well. Like you said, it should be based on a person's economic standing, not their race. From what I've heard the UBI in Stockton had some promising results, and the modest UBI ("permanent fund") in my homestate of AK is very popular here, so its worthy of exploration and experimentation IMO.
If they do ubi then that’s it, it replaces all the other benifits people abuse. I seriously think this countries going the wrong direction and is to concerned with helping the wrong people. There’s an insane amount of opportunities in this country where i seriously have zero sympathy for people that can’t support themselves. It’s insane that if I want to make 200k I literally have to make 400k because of taxes. I’m an electrician now and there people that don’t speak English making $20+ an hour because they can’t find amaricans worth a crap. My union actually has a program for people of color where they can get in without passing the acceptance test or doing the interview and everyone always laughs how every single one of them flunks out. Guess when you’re raised getting crap for free even a good job seems bad
Our country already can’t afford to operate like it does and I already pay way to much in taxes the last thing we need is more free crap. I wonder when all this fails you people crying about how bad we have it actually realize we where living good
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
@bmf666,
The United States is the biggest economy in the world. It can afford welfare. The question isn't whether or not these payments are sustainable, but rather whether they do any good. I don't believe giving people free money helps them in the long run, but there are exceptions to this. Some people need assistance. Unfortunately, most of the people that receive assistance don't need it. As for income tax, the US is similar to most Western countries. Very close to New Zealand. Australian income tax is actually much higher than the US for the upper class... but I don't think any Western English speaking country has a 50% income tax.
In order to clear 200k in the USA, you'd have to earn about 318k not 400k.
EDIT: Fuck me, Sweden has a 57% bracket. Count your blessings.
The United States is the biggest economy in the world. It can afford welfare. The question isn't whether or not these payments are sustainable, but rather whether they do any good. I don't believe giving people free money helps them in the long run, but there are exceptions to this. Some people need assistance. Unfortunately, most of the people that receive assistance don't need it. As for income tax, the US is similar to most Western countries. Very close to New Zealand. Australian income tax is actually much higher than the US for the upper class... but I don't think any Western English speaking country has a 50% income tax.
In order to clear 200k in the USA, you'd have to earn about 318k not 400k.
EDIT: Fuck me, Sweden has a 57% bracket. Count your blessings.
Last edited:
Bs, and that doesn’t include state tax, property tax or sales tax
us.icalculator.info
Federal Tax: $400k Salary Example | US Tax Calculator 2022
What is a $400k after tax? $400000 Federal and State Tax Calculation by the US Salary Calculator which can be used to calculate your 2022 tax return and tax refund calculations. $274,065.50 net salary is $400,000.00 gross salary.
us.icalculator.info
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
Admittedly, I was not aware of state tax. Fucking hell. Why does anyone live in the US? Seriously. I always thought the relatively low income tax rate made up somewhat for the additional medical costs. Apparently not. (Not sure why I would include property tax or sales tax?)
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
It's because we are brainwashed from a young age to believe that we live in the best country in the world and that everywhere else in the world dreams of coming to America.
Americans otherwise don't think too much about the rest of the world so they often don't realize how subpar things actually are compared to the other wealthy western countries.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I have moved the health care tangent into a new thread which can be found here.
https://www.bluelight.org/xf/threads/universal-health-care-discussion-thread.899878/
Thank you @cduggles for giving me the OK to clean this mess up given I was partly responsible for it
.
https://www.bluelight.org/xf/threads/universal-health-care-discussion-thread.899878/
Thank you @cduggles for giving me the OK to clean this mess up given I was partly responsible for it
.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
I'll just leave this here. I'm sure this woman of color only seeks unity, that's why she proudly hid behind a screen name to make such posts. Another 'elected' leader, albeit of the student body at VCU. Does she represent the student body and their views?
✿Dai₷y✿
Bluelighter
Idiots exist in all skin colours.
Its just a stupid post, doesnt anyone troll harder anymore, to the original idiot, to her face?
Meh, just ignore it and move on.
Its just a stupid post, doesnt anyone troll harder anymore, to the original idiot, to her face?
Meh, just ignore it and move on.
Droppersneck
Bluelighter
Norman Dodd discovered our non for profits and educational institutions were being subverted by communists back in the 30s/40s. Nothing that comes out of academia shocks me, rather the fact that no one knows the government officially investigated and found that colleges were being subverted, shocks me more.
birdup.snaildown
Greenlighter
✿Dai₷y✿
I agree and I disagree. People are concerned about white supremacists for the same reason I am concerned about people like this.
I don't know how many of them there are. There is no white supremacist movement blowing up at the moment, anywhere near the magnitude of BLM.
I realize that BLM has many level-headed supporters, but (like I said) we don't know how many are extremists.
It is not wise to ignore potential threats.
I agree and I disagree. People are concerned about white supremacists for the same reason I am concerned about people like this.
I don't know how many of them there are. There is no white supremacist movement blowing up at the moment, anywhere near the magnitude of BLM.
I realize that BLM has many level-headed supporters, but (like I said) we don't know how many are extremists.
It is not wise to ignore potential threats.
Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
This is awful, but it seems like pointless speculation to try to suggest she represents the views of the student body at large, or anyone at large besides herself and other extremists.
✿Dai₷y✿
Bluelighter
Shes just a tool, one post or a few dumb internet posts that get blown up into a news story by journalists too find real news does not make an extremist .