the united states federal government ought to pay reparations to descendants of slaves

"Reparations, I believe, are talked about for political reasons, trying to cater for the purpose of getting votes. If Congress was serious about reparations - in '93 and '94 the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and not one single Republican vote was needed for reparations. " -J. C. Watts it is because my partner and i agree with J. C Watts that we must stand on the con side of today"s debate Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans Definitions Reparations (from merriam webster) :the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury Ought (from merriam webster) :used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence contention 1 reparations won"t cure the past Gregory Kane, Why the Reparations Movement Should Fail, 3 U . Md. L. J. Race Relig. Gender & Class 189 (2003). Slavery is a part of the history of our society and cannot be erased. When proponents rely on reparations to cure the past treatment of Blacks in this country, they fail to realize the basic underlying premise that Blacks can never be made whole again. There is no way to right the wrongs from America's unsavory past. The essence of black culture was taken away and replaced with a new way of life. Now, we are all Americans and must learn to effectively deal with current problems. These problems certainly will not miraculously disappear simply despite claims by reparations supporters that holding the government responsible for slavery will correct the past. contention 2 reparations isn"t the solution to the problems african americans face today Hawkins, John. "John Hawkins - 5 Reasons Reparations For Slavery Are A Bad Idea. " Townhall. com. N. p. , 26 July 2014. Web. 04 Sept. 2015. Just giving people money seldom helps to fix their problem. That"s why America"s "war on poverty" has been an utter and complete failure. After doling out more than 21 trillion dollars over the last 50 years, we"ve done nothing to reduce the poverty rate. Shortly after the War on Poverty got rolling (1967), about 27% of Americans lived in poverty. In 2012, the last year for which data is available, the number was about 29%. " In fact, it"s entirely possible that the poverty rate would be LOWER today if there had never been a "war on poverty. " You can see this same dynamic with aid to Africa. After handing out more than a trillion dollars, much of the continent has gone BACKWARDS over the last 10-15 years. Even winning the lottery doesn"t tend to make a generational impact. A paper by economists Hoyt Bleakley and Joseph Ferrie traced the results of the Georgia land lottery down the generations. They found that, "one generation after the distribution of the Georgia land, sons of winners have no better adult outcomes (wealth, income, literacy) than the sons of non-winners, and winners" grandchildren do not have higher literacy or school attendance than non-winners" grandchildren. " Of course, that doesn"t mean we shouldn"t do anything. No American should have to live in an area where he"s afraid to let his children play in the yard because drug dealers sell openly on the corner. Terrible inner city schools disproportionately impact black Americans. That"s why school vouchers and charter schools disproportionately benefit them. Slashing tax rates in depressed areas down to almost nothing would encourage businesses to move in and would help black entrepreneurs. Micro-loans could help aspiring small business owners to get on their feet. Helping black Americans to help themselves would do more to create success and prosperity than any giveaway program ever could. contention 3 It is unjust to hold current citizens financially accountable to debts which aren"t theirs. DAT Thompson, Janna. "Memory and the Ethics of Reparation. " Center for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Melbourne University. October 2005. Web. . http://www.yale.edu... Some supporters of black reparations insist that the US Government ought to be regarded as a person in its own right: an agent that persists through time and the generations, incurring debts and responsibilities which, as a moral person, it is bound to discharge. Nations are expected to keep the treaties that they have made, even when this requires sacrifices from people who were not alive or were children when the treaty was approved and signed. Nations are expected to pay reparations even though some of the sacrifice will be borne by taxpayers who had nothing to do with the wrong. Corlett thinks that so long as citizens support the political institutions that they have inherited from the past they are liable for their government"s past debts.7 But a political practice of requiring present citizens to honour past agreements or past debts needs a moral justification. The government is supposed to represent the people, and the problem remains of justifying the imposition of moral debts on citizens who were unborn when the wrongs occurred. There is in fact a robust tradition in American thought, and indeed in liberal thought in general, that holds that a democratic nation of free individuals ought not to tolerate such impositions. According to Thomas Jefferson, "one generation is to another as one independent nation to another".