Where should stimulus money go?

[WillowTree]

There ya have it folks straight from RedDawns mouth. This is all about keeping money and work outta the hands of White Christian Males. Period Dot. End Quote.com

Don't forget, it's also about establishing that everyone who doesn't agree with Reich is tainted by their daily Rush listenership, since that's Obama's latest rant and all.

I know, there have not been many posts the last two days in which they haven't inserted the the mantra from the man!

 

[Paulie]

There ya have it folks straight from RedDawns mouth. This is all about keeping money and work outta the hands of White Christian Males. Period Dot. End Quote.com

Don't forget, it's also about establishing that everyone who doesn't agree with Reich is tainted by their daily Rush listenership, since that's Obama's latest rant and all.

I know, there have not been many posts the last two days in which they haven't inserted the the mantra from the man!

I wonder if any of them realize how collectively ridiculous it's starting to look.

I know I'D probably feel pretty dumb if I realized I was parroting that kind of crap along with everyone else.

 

[Shadow]

There ya have it folks straight from RedDawns mouth. This is all about keeping money and work outta the hands of White Christian Males. Period Dot. End Quote.com

Don't forget, it's also about establishing that everyone who doesn't agree with Reich is tainted by their daily Rush listenership, since that's Obama's latest rant and all.

I know, there have not been many posts the last two days in which they haven't inserted the the mantra from the man!

That's because he sent them their updated talking points for this weekend...and sent the flock to spread his message accross the land..

 

[jreeves]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!


Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

And who's the moron that thinks public works projects require only "skilled" electricians, bricklayers and carpenters? Who's the moron who slept through high school history class, and doesn't know that public works projects can employ people of all different skill levels in all types of ways?

Is there really anyone in their right mind who thinks a laid off janitor is going to be hired to do civil engineering design on a bridge?

Who cares what color of people get the money? To focus on the race of the person receiving the money is racist in nature. The bottom line is that government doesn't create wealth, they collect the wealth.

That's a nice conservative fantasy you may have been made to recite from listening to the rush limbaugh show. But that's not the way it works.

Human beings are by nature biased. If left to their own devices, they'll give work and contracts to people they are familiar with, people who have influence and contacts in the seats of power. And those companies tend to be run by white, christian males. Its just human nature.

Why do you think Halliburton got all those contracts in iraq? And they did some of the crappiest, shoddiest work around. In some cases, putting american soldiers lives at risk. And halliburton is a company run by rich white men.

One function of the government is to have rules and contract regulations in place so that everyone has a fair shot at it. Otherwise, you end up with another halliburton disaster. And there are plenty of companies run by women engineers and black engineers that don't have influence or contacts in washington. They often get left out in the cold, without some rules in place to make sure they have a fair shot at the contract. That's just human nature. You tend to give work to those you know, those who look like you, or those who have influence, unless you are forced by a system of rules that force you to look outside the traditional circles of power and infuence.

I'm not afraid to drive on a bridge designed by a qualified women engineer. Are you?

FYI I can't stand Rush. I don't know what that had to with your race baiting but I felt compelled to respond to that foolish comment. It isn't a black and white issue if you give them both a tax refund on taxes paid.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!

Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

Common sense tells us that any money spent should be on firms that A) meet the minimum qualifications, and B) can do the work efficiently and minimize costs. Race should not figure into it.

So Reich says the funds should not be limited to white males. Well duh. Nobody was saying that. What's he arguing against?

He could be arguing against a strawman argument that no one else is actually making. Or, it could be that he is arguing for spending money based on cosmetic differences instead of qualifications and cost. This is the most likely explanation, given his ideological slant and given what he supported when he was in the Clinton administration. It also explains your faux outrage at the faux outrage; the real issue is, you support racial and gender considerations in hiring.

 

[Paulie]

Who cares what color of people get the money? To focus on the race of the person receiving the money is racist in nature. The bottom line is that government doesn't create wealth, they collect the wealth.

That's a nice conservative fantasy you may have been made to recite from listening to the rush limbaugh show. But that's not the way it works.

Human beings are by nature biased. If left to their own devices, they'll give work and contracts to people they are familiar with, people who have influence and contacts in the seats of power. And those companies tend to be run by white, christian males. Its just human nature.

Why do you think Halliburton got all those contracts in iraq? And they did some of the crappiest, shoddiest work around. In some cases, putting american soldiers lives at risk. And halliburton is a company run by rich white men.

One function of the government is to have rules and contract regulations in place so that everyone has a fair shot at it. Otherwise, you end up with another halliburton disaster. And there are plenty of companies run by women engineers and black engineers that don't have influence or contacts in washington. They often get left out in the cold, without some rules in place to make sure they have a fair shot at the contract. That's just human nature. You tend to give work to those you know, those who look like you, or those who have influence, unless you are forced by a system of rules that force you to look outside the traditional circles of power and infuence.

I'm not afraid to drive on a bridge designed by a qualified women engineer. Are you?

FYI I can't stand Rush. I don't know what that had to with your race baiting but I felt compelled to respond to that foolish comment. It isn't a black and white issue if you give them both a tax refund on taxes paid.

The 'blame it on Rush listenership' is the new talking points memo that Obama handed out in a recent rant of his. Now, all the Obama voters feel compelled to blame conservative positions automatically on listening to Rush.

Does anyone even still LISTEN to Rush?

 

[Jon]

The comments from Reich were not nearly as upsetting as the comments from Rangel about the middle class. Fuck them both.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The comments from Reich were not nearly as upsetting as the comments from Rangel about the middle class. Fuck them both.

FUCK THEM ALL

I am a true nonpartisan, I hate all politicians and distrust them even more.

 

[Ravi]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!

Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

Common sense tells us that any money spent should be on firms that A) meet the minimum qualifications, and B) can do the work efficiently and minimize costs. Race should not figure into it.

So Reich says the funds should not be limited to white males. Well duh. Nobody was saying that. What's he arguing against?

He could be arguing against a strawman argument that no one else is actually making. Or, it could be that he is arguing for spending money based on cosmetic differences instead of qualifications and cost. This is the most likely explanation, given his ideological slant and given what he supported when he was in the Clinton administration. It also explains your faux outrage at the faux outrage; the real issue is, you support racial and gender considerations in hiring.

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

 

[jreeves]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!

Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

Common sense tells us that any money spent should be on firms that A) meet the minimum qualifications, and B) can do the work efficiently and minimize costs. Race should not figure into it.

So Reich says the funds should not be limited to white males. Well duh. Nobody was saying that. What's he arguing against?

He could be arguing against a strawman argument that no one else is actually making. Or, it could be that he is arguing for spending money based on cosmetic differences instead of qualifications and cost. This is the most likely explanation, given his ideological slant and given what he supported when he was in the Clinton administration. It also explains your faux outrage at the faux outrage; the real issue is, you support racial and gender considerations in hiring.

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

Screw empty government spending which has shown to be wasteful. Invest that money in the private sector and let the private sector create wealth.

 

[Ravi]

If you'd like to start a thread that discusses the merits of even having a stimulus package, be my guest.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!

Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

Common sense tells us that any money spent should be on firms that A) meet the minimum qualifications, and B) can do the work efficiently and minimize costs. Race should not figure into it.

So Reich says the funds should not be limited to white males. Well duh. Nobody was saying that. What's he arguing against?

He could be arguing against a strawman argument that no one else is actually making. Or, it could be that he is arguing for spending money based on cosmetic differences instead of qualifications and cost. This is the most likely explanation, given his ideological slant and given what he supported when he was in the Clinton administration. It also explains your faux outrage at the faux outrage; the real issue is, you support racial and gender considerations in hiring.

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

Umm okay.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers."

Translation: Most high skilled construction workers are white males. If we simply paid the most qualified, they would benefit disproportionately. Getting the most bang for our buck is not really a big priority, we want to make sure that the money gets to the correct demographics.

 

[Harry Dresden]

divide it up and give it to the people who contributed that money in the first place....the AMERICAN TAXPAYER.....we will stimulate this economy....

 

[Ravi]

Common sense tells us that any money spent should be on firms that A) meet the minimum qualifications, and B) can do the work efficiently and minimize costs. Race should not figure into it.

So Reich says the funds should not be limited to white males. Well duh. Nobody was saying that. What's he arguing against?

He could be arguing against a strawman argument that no one else is actually making. Or, it could be that he is arguing for spending money based on cosmetic differences instead of qualifications and cost. This is the most likely explanation, given his ideological slant and given what he supported when he was in the Clinton administration. It also explains your faux outrage at the faux outrage; the real issue is, you support racial and gender considerations in hiring.

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

Umm okay.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers."

Translation: Most high skilled construction workers are white males. If we simply paid the most qualified, they would benefit disproportionately. Getting the most bang for our buck is not really a big priority, we want to make sure that the money gets to the correct demographics.

Actually, I think getting the most bang for our buck is actually his priority.

I will admit that he should have never said "white Males." We must be careful to be politically correct, especially in the sensitive times in which we live...even white males shouldn't criticize white males. If he had just said "contruction workers" his point would have been made, especially in my state, where the budget for schools is being cut back to the point of hurt and infrastructure spending hasn't been touched. Prolly because construction companies can donate to political campaigns and schools cannot, but I digress.

If you consider his overall point, which from reading his blog and his other comments before whomever he was testifying before, which is basically this...if you wish to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of those that will spend it instead of those that have guaranteed jobs and will more than likely save their raises.

 

[jreeves]

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

Umm okay.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers."

Translation: Most high skilled construction workers are white males. If we simply paid the most qualified, they would benefit disproportionately. Getting the most bang for our buck is not really a big priority, we want to make sure that the money gets to the correct demographics.

Actually, I think getting the most bang for our buck is actually his priority.

I will admit that he should have never said "white Males." We must be careful to be politically correct, especially in the sensitive times in which we live...even white males shouldn't criticize white males. If he had just said "contruction workers" his point would have been made, especially in my state, where the budget for schools is being cut back to the point of hurt and infrastructure spending hasn't been touched. Prolly because construction companies can donate to political campaigns and schools cannot, but I digress.

If you consider his overall point, which from reading his blog and his other comments before whomever he was testifying before, which is basically this...if you wish to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of those that will spend it instead of those that have guaranteed jobs and will more than likely save their raises.

This is why it isn't a good idea to let government spend this stimulus. Let taxpayers keep their money, an across the board tax cut for taxpayers.

Government Waste from Boycottliberalism.com
Federal employees wasted at least $146 million over a one-year period in business- or first-class airline tickets bought in violation of travel policies, congressional investigators say.

It looks like Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is going to get his wish – $2 million in taxpayer funding for a library commemorating his 37 years in the House of Representatives. The Charles B. Rangel Center for Public service will serve as a repository for his "papers," and the congressman will have his own office in the Harlem complex.

The earned income tax credit (EITC) provides $31 billion in refundable tax credits to 19 million low-income families. The IRS estimates that $8.5 billion to $9.9 billion of this amount—nearly one-third—is wasted in overpayments.

A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million.

Since World War II, the U.S. has spent $1.2 trillion on foreign aid to 70 countries – and all are worse off than they were in 1980, according to the U.N.

For the Department of Commerce for giving the City and County of Honolulu $28,600 in 1981 to study how they could spend another $250,000 for a good surfing beach.

For the Health Care Financing Administration for Medicaid payments to psychiatrists for unscheduled, coincidental meetings with patients who were attending basketball games, sitting on stoops, etc. -- the cost of which was between $40 and $80 million from 1981 to 1984.

The National Endowment for the Humanities for a $25,000 grant in 1977 to study why people cheat, lie and act rudely on local Virginia tennis courts.

The Office of Education for spending $219,592 in 1978 to develop a curriculum to teach college students how to watch television.

The Environmental Protection Agency for spending an extra $1 million to $1.2 million in 1980 to preserve a Trenton, NJ sewer as a historical monument.

In 2005 - $469,000 for the National Wildlife Turkey Federation in South Carolina

In 2005 - $100,000 for the Punxsatawny Weather Discovery Center Museum

In 2005 - $350,000 for the Inner Harmony Foundation and Wellness Center in Scranton, Penn.

In 2005 - $1,430,000 for various Halls of Fame, including $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville, Tenn., and $70,000 for the Paper Industry International Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wis.;

Medicare, the U.S. health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled, erroneously paid out $19.9 billion during fiscal 2004, up from $19.6 billion a year earlier, because of mistakes, waste and fraud, a government report said. In most cases, hospitals and doctors billed for medically unnecessary services or didn't provide proper documentation to support the fees for services.

The GAO estimated that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department spent an estimated $100 million for airline tickets that were not used over a six-year period and failed to seek refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable.

While Andrew Cuomo was HUD Secretary under Bill Clinton, the agency set up a "Creative Wellness" program that spent $1,100,000 million taxpayer dollars on “gem” bags and taught public tenants to burn incense.

The study, titled "Status/Dominance and Motivational Effects on Nonverbal Sensitivity and Smiling," attempts to find out if it's really true that women smile more than men, and if people of higher status smile less. Judith Hall, a highly respected researcher at Northeastern University in Boston, is conducting the smile study — and it is not her first. Since 1993, she has been awarded more than $500,000.

A National Science Foundation study looking at whether White House reporters have become more adversarial sounds a bit strange to reporters and critics. Even more surprising: the study cost taxpayers $180,000.

In 2001 more than $600,000 in tax money was spent on researching the sex lives of South African ground squirrels.

The head of the IRS sent out a notice to every person advising them that they would be receiving a tax refund in 2001 - the estimated cost $30,000,000.

In 1998 more than $800,000 was approved for a coal library in Pennsylvania. Defenders staed that it would provide historical insight into a very important part of Pennsylvania and history.

In 2001 the U.S.. Government gave $5,000,000 to the University of Alaska, North Pacific University, and the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation to fund the "stellar sea lion recovery plan."

In the year 2001, Congress appropriated $340,000,000 in federal tax dollars to PBS (Public Broadcasting Services).

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $500,000 for a Mississippi research project on "manure handling and disposal".

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $1,500,000 million to promote silk production in Laos

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $1 ,000,000 for the "eradication of Brown Tree Snakes" (Hawaii).

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $1,000,000 to "develop and train Alaska natives for employment in the petroleum industry."

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $500,000 for water taxis in Savannah (Georgia)

In 1999 the U.S. government spent $200,000 for a transit center for the Toledo Mud Hens minor league baseball team.

In 1999 $1,200,000 million to subsidize a park on the Galapagos Islands.

In 2000 the U.S. government spent $100,000 to study the causes of sediment buildup at a Santa Cruz, New Mexico dam.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $50,000 for a tattoo removal program in San Luis Obispo, California.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $400,000 for the Montana Sheep Institute to improve the profitability of the state's sheep industry.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $273,000 for the Blue Springs (Missouri) Youth Orchestra Outreach Unit for educational training to combat Goth culture

In 2003 the U.S. government spent $1,000,000 appropriation for the Center for Public Service and the Common Good (a think tank) at the University of San Francisco.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $400,000 for manure management research at the National Swine Research Center.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $1,100,000 for the MountainMade Foundation in Thomas, West Virginia for business development and the education of artists and craftspeople.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $4,000,000 to implement the forest and fish report of the Washington State.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $500,000 for exhibits on the Sullivan brothers at the Grout Museum in Waterloo, Iowa.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $61,000 for the State Historical Society to archive the history of Iowa workers.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $1,200,000 for the Ohio Arts Council to expand international programs.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $2,900,000 for the Mountaineer Doctor Television program at West Virginia University;

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $2,000,000 for an educational mall at the Raleigh County Commission in Beckley.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $2,000,000 for West Virginia University to establish a Center on Obesity.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $260,000 for asparagus technology in the stae of Washington.

In 2002 the U.S. government spent $1,200,000 for music education at the GRAMMY Foundation

In 2000 the U.S. government spent $50,000 for the development of a Welcome Center Facility City for Enumclaw, Washington.

In 1997 - $4,000,000 for the Gambling Impact Study Commission.

In 1997 - $330,000 for Stellar Sea Lion research of the North Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Consortium.

In 1997 - $785,000 for bluefish/striped bass research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

In 1997 - $2,700,000 added by the Senate for the Animal Resource Wing at South Dakota State University

In 1997 - $4,000,000 added in conference for the Discovery Center of Science and Technology.

In 1997 - $19,600,000 added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland, a program that tries to aid the peace process in Ireland by paying for golf videos, pony trekking centers, and sweater exports.

In 1997 - $16,369,000 added by the Senate for public library construction.

In 1997 - $9,469,000 added in conference for Migrant Education programs including: $7,441,000 for the High School Equivalency Program; and $2,028,000 for the College Assistance Migrant Program

In 1997 - $3,100,000 added by the Senate for the National Writing Project.

In 1997 - $8,200,000 for a new classroom building at the Rowley Secret Service Training Center in Beltsville, Maryland, which is the district of House Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations subcommittee member Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and the state of Senate appropriator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.).

In 1998 - $220,000 added by the Senate for lowbush blueberry research in Maine.

In 1994 - $221,000 for lowbush blueberry research at the University of Maine in the state of Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).

In 1998 - $150,000 added by the House for the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness.

In 1998 - $127,000 added by the Senate for global marketing support services in the state of Senate appropriator Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.). According to testimony, the goal of this research is to identify “potential foreign markets for Arkansas products….”

In 1998 - $32,000 added by the Senate for the Center for Rural Studies in the state of Senate appropriator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). A portion of this grant money is used for analytical reports to guide the development of Vermont retail shopping areas

In 1998 - $500,000 added by the House in the district of House appropriator Richard Durbin (D-IL) for the construction at the Lincoln Home National Historic Site, Illinois, of Chalres Corneau’s house, a neighbor and friend of Abraham Lincoln.

In 1998 - $10,912,000 added by the Senate for foreign language assistance.

In 1994 - $200,000 for locoweed research at New Mexico State University in the state of House appropriator Joe Skeen (R-NM). Since 1992, $716,000 has been appropriated, and there is no expected completion date for this research.

In 1994 - $1,000,000 added in the Senate for the Multispecies Aquaculture Center in the state of Senate appropriator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

In 1994 - $19,600,000 added in the House for the International Fund for Ireland. The conference report “restores language stricken by the Senate and appropriates up to $19,600,000 for the International Fund for Ireland.” In the past, this program has used American taxpayer dollars for a golf video and pony trekking centers.

In 1993 - $19,704,000 for the International Fund for Ireland requested, according to committee sources, by House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-WA).

In 1993 - $9,170,000 added in conference for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in the district of House appropriator John Murtha (D-PA)

In 1992 - $2,000,000 added in conference by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) for a New York Bight Center for undersea research.

 

[DiveCon]

LOL.

The wingnut brou ha ha over the Reich video is the best faux outrage post of the month!


Calm down white people. You're acting like a bunch of whiny school girls.

I totally agree that we shouldn't give all the stimulus money just to white people. That's just fucking common sense.

And who's the moron that thinks public works projects require only "skilled" electricians, bricklayers and carpenters? Who's the moron who slept through high school history class, and doesn't know that public works projects can employ people of all different skill levels in all types of ways?

Is there really anyone in their right mind who thinks a laid off janitor is going to be hired to do civil engineering design on a bridge?

Who cares what color of people get the money? To focus on the race of the person receiving the money is racist in nature. The bottom line is that government doesn't create wealth, they collect the wealth.

That's a nice conservative fantasy you may have been made to recite from listening to the rush limbaugh show. But that's not the way it works.

Human beings are by nature biased. If left to their own devices, they'll give work and contracts to people they are familiar with, people who have influence and contacts in the seats of power. And those companies tend to be run by white, christian males. Its just human nature.

Why do you think Halliburton got all those contracts in iraq? And they did some of the crappiest, shoddiest work around. In some cases, putting american soldiers lives at risk. And halliburton is a company run by rich white men.

One function of the government is to have rules and contract regulations in place so that everyone has a fair shot at it. Otherwise, you end up with another halliburton disaster. And there are plenty of companies run by women engineers and black engineers that don't have influence or contacts in washington. They often get left out in the cold, without some rules in place to make sure they have a fair shot at the contract. That's just human nature. You tend to give work to those you know, those who look like you, or those who have influence, unless you are forced by a system of rules that force you to look outside the traditional circles of power and infuence.

I'm not afraid to drive on a bridge designed by a qualified women engineer. Are you?

were you one of the many bitching about where McCain finished in his class?


this is pure hypocrisy on YOUR part

 

[Paulie]

Here's what he actually said:

Now let me say something about infrastructure. It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that have a high social return that also can be done with the greatest speed possible.
I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.
​

Umm okay.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers."

Translation: Most high skilled construction workers are white males. If we simply paid the most qualified, they would benefit disproportionately. Getting the most bang for our buck is not really a big priority, we want to make sure that the money gets to the correct demographics.

Actually, I think getting the most bang for our buck is actually his priority.

I will admit that he should have never said "white Males." We must be careful to be politically correct, especially in the sensitive times in which we live...even white males shouldn't criticize white males. If he had just said "contruction workers" his point would have been made, especially in my state, where the budget for schools is being cut back to the point of hurt and infrastructure spending hasn't been touched. Prolly because construction companies can donate to political campaigns and schools cannot, but I digress.

If you consider his overall point, which from reading his blog and his other comments before whomever he was testifying before, which is basically this...if you wish to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of those that will spend it instead of those that have guaranteed jobs and will more than likely save their raises.

Yeah, because it would be GREAT for the economy in the long term, if we just added another couple hundred billion dollars to the system so people could continue spending it on CRAP.

At this point, I think people have enough TRINKETS. It's time to start SAVING again, and investing wisely. Picking out the less fortunate, not so highly skilled workers means the money is going to be spent on beer, weed and other drugs, and any other ridiculous bullshit you can think of.

What Reich and Rangel said was a waste of breath. The contruction industry has their way of assigning manpower, and it works just fine. We didn't need some government buffoons who've probably never even HELD a shovel, delegating how manpower is assigned on a construction job...LEAST of all, by way of RACE.

It's not about who "deserves" the work, it's about who can perform it efficiently, SAFELY, and adequately. That's really all that matters. That will ultimately INCLUDE people who have been out of work, and who are less skilled. There's a hierarchy, and jobs need machinery operators all the way down to the lowly ditch digger. Everyone's going to get some work out of this.

 

[editec]

The money should go to funding projects which benefit the whole commonweal.

Roads and brdiges, to be sure, but other things as well.

Now if it ALL goes to roads and bridges it will benefit only one class of American worker immediately and that was, I think, the complaint of Rengal.

And FWIW, mostly (not entirely, of course) that industry (road construction and allied industries) is manned and by White workers.

Now I quite agree with those of you who think Rengals statement was assinine, especially the way he phrased it, but his point was that industries other than road construction need to get some of that maoney, too.

 

[Ravi]

Umm okay.

"I am concerned, as I'm sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professions or to white male construction workers."

Translation: Most high skilled construction workers are white males. If we simply paid the most qualified, they would benefit disproportionately. Getting the most bang for our buck is not really a big priority, we want to make sure that the money gets to the correct demographics.

Actually, I think getting the most bang for our buck is actually his priority.

I will admit that he should have never said "white Males." We must be careful to be politically correct, especially in the sensitive times in which we live...even white males shouldn't criticize white males. If he had just said "contruction workers" his point would have been made, especially in my state, where the budget for schools is being cut back to the point of hurt and infrastructure spending hasn't been touched. Prolly because construction companies can donate to political campaigns and schools cannot, but I digress.

If you consider his overall point, which from reading his blog and his other comments before whomever he was testifying before, which is basically this...if you wish to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of those that will spend it instead of those that have guaranteed jobs and will more than likely save their raises.

Yeah, because it would be GREAT for the economy in the long term, if we just added another couple hundred billion dollars to the system so people could continue spending it on CRAP.

At this point, I think people have enough TRINKETS. It's time to start SAVING again, and investing wisely. Picking out the less fortunate, not so highly skilled workers means the money is going to be spent on beer, weed and other drugs, and any other ridiculous bullshit you can think of.

What Reich and Rangel said was a waste of breath. The contruction industry has their way of assigning manpower, and it works just fine. We didn't need some government buffoons who've probably never even HELD a shovel, delegating how manpower is assigned on a construction job...LEAST of all, by way of RACE.

It's not about who "deserves" the work, it's about who can perform it efficiently, SAFELY, and adequately. That's really all that matters. That will ultimately INCLUDE people who have been out of work, and who are less skilled. There's a hierarchy, and jobs need machinery operators all the way down to the lowly ditch digger. Everyone's going to get some work out of this.

You are still not getting the point, but I can see it is quite likely that you never will.

One last time: In order to STIMULATE the economy the money needs to go to people that will SPEND it, not SAVE it.

A discussion on the merits of stimulating the economy is best left for a different thread. My question applies to a "fait accompli."

 

[Paulie]

Actually, I think getting the most bang for our buck is actually his priority.

I will admit that he should have never said "white Males." We must be careful to be politically correct, especially in the sensitive times in which we live...even white males shouldn't criticize white males. If he had just said "contruction workers" his point would have been made, especially in my state, where the budget for schools is being cut back to the point of hurt and infrastructure spending hasn't been touched. Prolly because construction companies can donate to political campaigns and schools cannot, but I digress.

If you consider his overall point, which from reading his blog and his other comments before whomever he was testifying before, which is basically this...if you wish to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of those that will spend it instead of those that have guaranteed jobs and will more than likely save their raises.

Yeah, because it would be GREAT for the economy in the long term, if we just added another couple hundred billion dollars to the system so people could continue spending it on CRAP.

At this point, I think people have enough TRINKETS. It's time to start SAVING again, and investing wisely. Picking out the less fortunate, not so highly skilled workers means the money is going to be spent on beer, weed and other drugs, and any other ridiculous bullshit you can think of.

What Reich and Rangel said was a waste of breath. The contruction industry has their way of assigning manpower, and it works just fine. We didn't need some government buffoons who've probably never even HELD a shovel, delegating how manpower is assigned on a construction job...LEAST of all, by way of RACE.

It's not about who "deserves" the work, it's about who can perform it efficiently, SAFELY, and adequately. That's really all that matters. That will ultimately INCLUDE people who have been out of work, and who are less skilled. There's a hierarchy, and jobs need machinery operators all the way down to the lowly ditch digger. Everyone's going to get some work out of this.

You are still not getting the point, but I can see it is quite likely that you never will.

One last time: In order to STIMULATE the economy the money needs to go to people that will SPEND it, not SAVE it.

A discussion on the merits of stimulating the economy is best left for a different thread. My question applies to a "fait accompli."

I'm fucking getting it Rav. YOU aren't, I guess.

If you go assigning manpower based on who's going to ultimately waste their paychecks, you're playing with fire. You want your bridge to collapse because the workers were unskilled, but chosen because they'd spend their check on a fucking plasma TV??

You're an idiot if you think that's how these jobs should be manned. You're also an idiot if you think it's in the economy's best interest to add hundreds of billions of dollars of new money so people will keep wasting it some more, like they ALWAYS do in this country.

You build an economy on savings, not on superficial spending. We're fucked right now because people can't manage their wallets. And you want to assign job manpower based on who will empty their wallets the most. Proper savings and investment will ultimately lead to more spending. You can't have your miracle overnight.

You're a fucking dumbass in this case Rav, I'm sorry. It needs to be said.