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

First topic message reminder :

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.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399137/Oakland-California-exclude-white-families-living-poverty-500-month-checks.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you mean by charity?  I think Oakland Resilient Families is a charitable organization.  What Mayor Shaaf and the City are crowing about is the fact that they were successful in landing that charitable organization, to exercise their charitable focus on Oakland.



In a perfect world, there might be charities that would focus on white families only.  But Oakland Resilient Families focuses on all families.  The fact of race is not intentional, nor even a policy.  It is happenstance that people in lower incomes happen to be blacks and minorities.

We can have another conversation about why blacks have lower incomes in a city in America.  But that conversation would likely lead us into a discussion of economic racism, and might not be pleasant for whites.

The fact is that this article is a jumble of deceptive words and look-alike tokens, aimed at making something appear to be something else.

Well, it's Oakland . Where white liberals from San Francisco have been shoving blacks to for decades.  Keep them across the bay eh?  

Yep, unfortunately there is some validity to that.  San Francisco is an elite, elite town, and verrrry expensive.  It has world-class restaurants, the theater, parks with beautiful views, interesting ethnic sections, it's home to a whole music movement: Janis Joplin & The Holding Company, Otis Redding and "The Dock of the Bay", The Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane...going to THE CITY is like going to a whole theme park, only it's real.

But it is a little tip of a peninsula, and has no room for expansion.  So, yes, the simple fact of capitalism pushes minorities and whites, some of them poor, some not, out into the other cities around the Bay: San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond and Marin County; not to mention over the hills, into the plush tri-valley: Orinda, Lafayette, Moraga, Walnut Creek and Concord.  But San Francisco has strong rent controls, and it retains its share of the lower-income.

It's a very liberal community, and now controls the nation: Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and a Representative of San Francisco; and Vice-President Kamala Harris grew up in Oakland/Berkeley, and was District Attorney of San Francisco and AG of California.  In the midst of all of this are the two greatest universities in the US, Berkeley and Stanford...which adds to the liberal feel.

But overall, the Bay Area does all right for itself.  No more poverty here than in Jackson, Mississippi, or Houston, Texas.  Besides, we've got Silicon Valley, the computer/programming center of the world.  And San Francisco is the banking center of the west coast.  Forbes Magazine has said that the New York eastern corridor, and the Bay Area, are the biggest centers of money and commerce in the nation...perhaps the world.  Even our poor are the best and the brightest.  

“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

eddie wrote:“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

You've completely misread the situation. But that's not on you, eds...the Daily Mail wanted you to misread the situation.

The City did nothing, except insofar as they invited the Oakland Resilient Families, a charitable entity, to contribute to a "guaranteed income" program...a program for all people, white or black. What the Daily Mail seized upon was the effect...that it resulted in helping black families. Blacks are overwhelming clustered in any identifiable circle of poverty.

From this, the article inferred that it was intended for black families, when it was merely the effect de facto. They put the cart before the horse, and claimed the cart was doing the pushing. I went around the article and did some research of my own. The Daily Mail did a real twist n' taint job...but that's how they make money.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

People would automatically ''raise holy hell'' in ANY matters to do with the klan anyway. Just the name itself would get them riled, let alone anything else.

Why would anyone use the Klan as their yardstick in a thread like this ? Surely you are better than this. Do you mention them often in your RL conversations? Do you move in circles where they are regarded as  "fine people, very very fine people?  

The Klan lynched young girls (i've seen some gruesome photos) among numerous other atrocities, they are nobody's heroes.

So racism bothers you now?

Now all you need is some consistency.

Answer the question, Maddog. It was a simple enough question.

The answer to your own question was there in the first line of my first post, it was crystal clear, you couldn't have missed it.  
I also clearly said in the last line that the cash should be given to ALL families of whatever shade, who are poor.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

You've completely misread the situation.  But that's not on you, eds...the Daily Mail wanted you to misread the situation.

The City did nothing, except insofar as they invited the Oakland Resilient Families, a charitable entity, to contribute to a "guaranteed income" program...a program for all people, white or black.  What the Daily Mail seized upon was the effect...that it resulted in helping black families.  Blacks are overwhelming clustered in any identifiable circle of poverty.

From this, the article inferred that it was intended for black families, when it was merely the effect de facto.  They put the cart before the horse, and claimed the cart was doing the pushing.  I went around the article and did some research of my own.  The Daily Mail did a real twist n' taint job...but that's how they make money.

There were other articles posted.

Guess you didn't read them.

What's happening in Oakland is quite clear.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So racism bothers you now?

Now all you need is some consistency.

Answer the question, Maddog. It was a simple enough question.

The answer to your own question was there in the first line of my first post, it was crystal clear, you couldn't have missed it.  
I also clearly said in the last line that the cash should be given to ALL families of whatever shade, who are poor.

It got your attention didn't it?

I just substituted one group that judges people based on race for another.

And I'm glad you oppose all racism. Finally something we can agree on.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So racism bothers you now?

Now all you need is some consistency.

Answer the question, Maddog. It was a simple enough question.

The answer to your own question was there in the first line of my first post, it was crystal clear, you couldn't have missed it.  
I also clearly said in the last line that the cash should be given to ALL families of whatever shade, who are poor.

Its his superpower

Korben wrote:

JulesV wrote:
Answer the question, Maddog. It was a simple enough question.

The answer to your own question was there in the first line of my first post, it was crystal clear, you couldn't have missed it.  
I also clearly said in the last line that the cash should be given to ALL families of whatever shade, who are poor.

Its his superpower

Yeah, wading through bullshit is one of my powers.

I don't have to roar every time a monkey chatters.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Its his superpower

Yeah, wading through bullshit is one of my powers.

I don't have to roar every time a monkey chatters.

You accuse people of something they did not say.
Then when they point this out, you do not have the humility to apologise for your error (God forbid !)
Instead you say you haven't got time to wade thru BS.
Tho funnily enough you have plenty of time to invent stuff they never said.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, wading through bullshit is one of my powers.

I don't have to roar every time a monkey chatters.

You accuse people of something they did not say.
Then when they point this out, you do not have the humility to apologise for your error (God forbid !)
Instead you say you haven't got time to wade thru BS.
Tho funnily enough you have plenty of time to invent stuff they never said.

In plain fucking English, what was my error?

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:
Answer the question, Maddog. It was a simple enough question.

The answer to your own question was there in the first line of my first post, it was crystal clear, you couldn't have missed it.  
I also clearly said in the last line that the cash should be given to ALL families of whatever shade, who are poor.

It got your attention didn't it?

I just substituted one group that judges people based on race for another.

And I'm glad you oppose all racism. Finally something we can agree on.

It's a cheap way of getting yourself attention. The klan lynched small girls.
What did this attention achieve?
I mean .... no one has changed their opinion as a result.
Cos the opinions were sensible in the first place.

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It got your attention didn't it?

I just substituted one group that judges people based on race for another.

And I'm glad you oppose all racism. Finally something we can agree on.

It's a cheap way of getting yourself attention.  The klan lynched small girls.
What did this attention achieve?
I mean .... no one has changed their opinion as a result.
Cos the opinions were sensible in the first place.

Yes, the Klan was a more violent racist group than most of the racists of today.

Maddog wrote:

JulesV wrote:

You accuse people of something they did not say.
Then when they point this out, you do not have the humility to apologise for your error (God forbid !)
Instead you say you haven't got time to wade thru BS.
Tho funnily enough you have plenty of time to invent stuff they never said.

In plain fucking English, what was my error?

Quit cussing!
I see you are fighting with Korben in other threads too.
Didn't you say you're not the type who ever has ...... ''a bad day.'' ?

JulesV wrote:

Maddog wrote:

In plain fucking English, what was my error?

Quit cussing!  
I see you are fighting with Korben in other threads too.
Didn't you say you're not the type who ever has  ......  ''a bad day.'' ?

I'll cuss all I want.

I can have a good day, cuss and point out nonsense all at the same time.

So what was my fucking error so I can determine if I need to apologize to someone .

You're a child, throwing your toys around, then boasting ''it got your attention''.

I cannot believe I was trying to make jokes and have a laugh with you in other threads in recent days, I thought you were a decent human being who can rise above petty political shit.

My mistake!

JulesV wrote:You're a child, throwing your toys around, then boasting ''it got your attention''.

I cannot believe I was trying to make jokes and have a laugh with you in other threads in recent days, I thought you were a decent human being who can rise above petty political shit.

My mistake!

I'm still waiting to hear about my error.

And I'm not throwing anything.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Its his superpower

Yeah, wading through bullshit is one of my powers.

Creating the bullshit is the other power he has.

JulesV wrote:You're a child, throwing your toys around, then boasting ''it got your attention''.

I cannot believe I was trying to make jokes and have a laugh with you in other threads in recent days, I thought you were a decent human being who can rise above petty political shit.

My mistake!

Red is cussing because he's losing.  He can't stay with the topic because he's in over his head.

So he nit-picks and shouts platitudes about 'it's bullshite because it takes too much to read'.  What he means is, his attention span has stopped working.

I find it best, once you have drained every last ounce of cerebral content out of him, to just leave on the ground, in the puddle of his own making.

Original Quill wrote:

JulesV wrote:You're a child, throwing your toys around, then boasting ''it got your attention''.

I cannot believe I was trying to make jokes and have a laugh with you in other threads in recent days, I thought you were a decent human being who can rise above petty political shit.

My mistake!

He's cussing because he's losing.  He can't stay with the topic because he's in over his head.

So he nit-picks and shouts platitudes about 'it's bullshite because it takes too much to read'.  What he means is his attention span has stopped working.

I find it best, once you have drained every last ounce of cerebral content out of him, to just leave on the ground, in the puddle of his own making.

Does this mean less responses from you on my posts?

Sounds like a win for everyone.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He's cussing because he's losing. He can't stay with the topic because he's in over his head.

So he nit-picks and shouts platitudes about 'it's bullshite because it takes too much to read'. What he means is his attention span has stopped working.

I find it best, once you have drained every last ounce of cerebral content out of him, to just leave on the ground, in the puddle of his own making.

Does this mean less responses from you on my posts?

Sounds like a win for everyone.

Why should we lower the level just because a dumbass southerner is involved in the conversation? Keep up. Take some night classes, fcs. Exercise your cerebral faculties.

Oh yes, and try honesty instead of gotcha. It will get you back in the conversation.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Does this mean less responses from you on my posts?

Sounds like a win for everyone.  

Why should we lower the level just because a dumbass southerner is involved in the conversation?  Keep up.  Take some night classes, fcs.  Exercise your cerebral faculties.

Oh yes, and try honesty instead of gotcha.  It will get you back in the conversation.

We?

Korben wrote:

eddie wrote:

Oh I see! It was wrong when it was racist against black people but now it’s right because it’s racist against another colour?

So to right a wrong we have to still be wrong.

Fucking odd way of doing things.  

Woh steady eddie
you perhaps could look at it like this
switch colour for gender
Equal rights and wages for women who do the same job as a man or denying women promotions because they are women and might become pregnant  or stipulating that if they do become pregnant they loose there job ect ect  And all the other things that women face
would it be wrong to give woman a wage rise to the same level as a man while not giving the same wage rise to a man ?

would righting that wrong be a odd way of doing things

Actually you make a damn good point to eddie there.  

I've never thought of that, tbh ... but you are right, K. Genius!

Women (including me) eagerly & unquestioningly accept all the compromises/reparations/adjusments (call it whatever you will) made to close the unfair inequalities gap between the genders, but when it comes to the subject of addressing  equivalent racial inequalities, some women laugh and mock and say it's discriminatory.

If you shout 'racist racist' then surely you should also shout 'sexist, sexist'.
Either both are discriminatory - or neither.
Make up your mind.

eddie wrote:“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

RW extremists always set up this false equivalency. Slavery was real. No one has ever made a program of slavery with whites.

Remedial efforts are done to no one, and they penalize no one. Those who promote this false equivalency try to stretch reality it to try to make it fit. They fail.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

RW extremists always set up this false equivalency.  Slavery was real.  No one has ever made a program of slavery with whites.

Remedial efforts are done to no one, and they penalize no one.  Those who promote this false equivalency try to stretch reality it to try to make it fit.  They fail.

They penalize those overlooked because of their DNA.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

RW extremists always set up this false equivalency.  Slavery was real.  No one has ever made a program of slavery with whites.

Remedial efforts are done to no one, and they penalize no one.  Those who promote this false equivalency try to stretch reality it to try to make it fit.  They fail.

They penalize those overlooked because of their DNA.  

Their DNA ? Is that the new way of saying Black

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They penalize those overlooked because of their DNA.  

Their DNA ? Is that the new way of saying Black

It's a way of penalizing people based on their ancestors and where they came from.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:“To right a wrong, you have to again, do something that you considered wrong in the first place!”

What a load of absolute claptrap nonsense.

“We think blacks were treated badly and it was racist, so in order to right that wrong, we will be racist ourselves!”

What a total crock of absolute hand-wringing nonsense.

RW extremists always set up this false equivalency.  Slavery was real.  No one has ever made a program of slavery with whites.

Remedial efforts are done to no one, and they penalize no one.  Those who promote this false equivalency try to stretch reality it to try to make it fit.  They fail.

Remedial efforts  were made for gender equality.
Awesome how women in their 20s  &  30s just take it for granted that there's always been gender equality in pay and working conditions.

Even as recently as ~ 30years ago, the conditions between men and women were VERY different.
Help with maternity leave,  maternity grants, tax credits, affordable childcare, decent pension was meagre - or nonexistent.

It is because of the blood sweat and tears of older women - especially northern women in mining communities, who campaigned nonstop for equality that young women today, quietly reap all the financial benefits.
 
I've always done my bit campaigning for womens rights. We've come a long way.

I'm at the stage where me and my family, are comfortable in life (not rich or anything - but comfortable enough) so I could just sit back and relax and not help campaign for anything anymore.

But that's not me. I will be a lifelong SJW.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Their DNA ? Is that the new way of saying Black

It's a way of penalizing people based on their ancestors and where they came from.

Well Dna identification would have been difficult ,i wonder if they is some other way ,you know a simple way say even so simple you could spot it straight away ...Have a think


then i guess you have to ask the question what's acctualy wrong with there DNA ,you have to wonder.
what do you think they thought was wrong with their DNA >

JulesV wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

RW extremists always set up this false equivalency.  Slavery was real.  No one has ever made a program of slavery with whites.

Remedial efforts are done to no one, and they penalize no one.  Those who promote this false equivalency try to stretch reality it to try to make it fit.  They fail.

Remedial efforts  were made for gender equality.
Awesome how women in their 20s  &  30s just take it for granted that there's always been gender equality in pay and working conditions.

Even as recently as ~ 30years ago, the conditions between men and women were VERY different.
Help with maternity leave,  maternity grants, tax credits, affordable childcare, decent pension was meagre - or nonexistent.

It is because of the blood sweat and tears of older women - especially northern women in mining communities, who campaigned nonstop for equality that young women today, quietly reap all the financial benefits.
 
I've always done my bit campaigning for womens rights. We've come a long way.

To be honest I would be quite Happy if all the leaders in the world where Women

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Their DNA ? Is that the new way of saying Black

It's a way of penalizing people based on their ancestors and where they came from.

There is no penalty about it. The "people" are not being penalized.

in the end this is a simple thing its not complicated The rich and powerful tell the middle class its the poor peoples fault .and while the middle class look down on the poor,and blame them for there woa's, The rich Guy has his hands in their pocket

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's a way of penalizing people based on their ancestors and where they came from.

Well Dna identification would have been difficult ,i wonder if they is some other way ,you know a simple way say even so simple you could spot it straight away ...Have a think


then i guess you have to ask the question what's acctualy wrong with there DNA ,you have to wonder.
what do you think they thought was wrong   with their DNA >

Hmmmm....

I looked in the mirror of over 50 years without knowing where my ancestors were from.