--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Nelson" <nelsonriddle2001@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 2009, at 10:52 PM, Hope. Change. Believe. Sacrifice. > > Coming > > > > Together. wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Hope. Change. Believe. > Sacrifice. > > > > > Coming Together. <l.shaddai@> wrote: > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, raunchydog <raunchydog@> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Hell, what happened to the 40 acres, $50 and a mule? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Another one went over everybody's head. > > > > > > > > Yeah, nobody here can possibly fathom the > > > > subtlety and brilliance behind your jokes, eternal. > > > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > > A few people with some knowledge of history could put the remark > > > into context. > > > It was quite a while back as it would be hard for anyone here to > > > imagine farming 40 acres with one mule or, seeing the gift as a > > blessing. > > > The present bailout seems somewhat more extravagant. > > > > "The present bailout" in contrast to that proposed (some dare even say > > promised) 1865 bailout, right? > > > > Well, I for one am sooo glad we didn't fall for that bailout back > > then. All those unemployed blacks -- most every black person in the > > south unemployed in 1865. The nerve of them. Obviously they goofed off > > in school and were lazy and deserved to be unemployed. In america, we > > only reward hard work -- and clearly all those southern blacks in 1865 > > had never done a decent days work in their lives. > > > > So I am 100% behind you Nelson. Why bail them out? I mean they came to > > America looking for the American dream, they goofed off for 200 years, > > and now they WANT US to bail them out? No sirree. We a aren't a gunna > > do it. It wouldn't be prudent. (Besides we only bail out our own kind > > so its a moot point). > >
> I seem to have gotten the point mixed up (again). > Just meant some people could remember their history and, could place > or appreciate the earlier comment. > I guess your recall is better than mine as I didn't know the issue > in such detail- thank you. Nelson, Sorry that I unloaded my satiric guns on you. I assumed you knew that 40 acres and a mule was what was promised freed slaves -- then revoked. And thus I assumed you were equating that with a "bailout". Following is a short segement from wiki. ________ 40 acres and a mule is a term for compensation that was promised to be awarded to freed African American slaves after the Civil Warâ" 40 acres (16 ha) of land to farm, and a mule with which to drag a plow so the land could be cultivated. The awardâ"a land grant of a quarter of a quarter section (160 acres) deeded to heads of households presumably formerly owned by land-holding whitesâ"was the product of Special Field Orders, No. 15, issued January 16, 1865 by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, which applied to black families who lived near the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Sherman's orders specifically allocated "the islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns river, Florida." There was no mention of mules in Sherman's order, although the Army may have distributed them anyway. Federal and state homestead grants of the time ranged from 1/4 section up to a full section. After the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, his successor, Andrew Johnson, revoked Sherman's Orders. It is sometimes mistakenly claimed that Johnson also vetoed the enactment of the policy as a federal statute (introduced as U.S. Senate Bill 60). In fact, the Freedmen's Bureau Bill which he vetoed made no mention of grants of land or mules. (Another version of the Freedmen's bill, also without the land grants, was later passed after Johnson's second veto was overridden.) By June 1865, around 10,000 freed slaves were settled on 400,000 acres (1,600 km²) in Georgia and South Carolina. Soon after, President Andrew Johnson reversed the order and returned the land to its white former owners. Because of this, the phrase has come to represent the failure of Reconstruction and the general public to assist African Americans. ______ I was sort of appalled by a casting of this revoked promise to freed slaves as a bailout. At times I try to channel my frustrations through (attempted) satire. I should have asked questions before shooting (its the Bush influence that has me doing the opposite). > The present bailout however looks like they will throw good money > after bad in bailing out institutions that should fail I agree with that. I do believe we need a stimulus -- and education has the highest return on investment -- it will be paid back by higher tax revenues in the long run. Building new bridges -- not so much -- an such his highly susceptible to graft, earmarks and funny accounting. Investment in education is far more transparent, as will as having the highest return. It could even be Consciousness-based education. and, when it > fails anyway, the wealth will end taken from the taxpayers and end up > going into the same black hole. > That is my concern, that we will end up with a 4-10 trillion deficit and not have much in terms of productive assets to show for it. (Investment in human capital is is an "asset" in my book)
