When will we be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character, or additioanlly by the quality of our work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4



Spence will soon tell me I am a Limbaugh follower, although I have never heard the man speak. Remember when McCain's advisor said American's are whiners? I wonder what the noise will be around President Obama's advisor..........crickets.......

ooh, looks like CNN is all over this!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/martin.sasha.smile/index.html

While I agree that race has no place in how a stimulus plan is executed, I think the video commentary has some of that tasty Fox News-esque spin.

"Conspiring to FORCE SOCIAL ENGINEERING and WEALTH DISTRIBUTION"
This is suppose to be the punctuated point of the video when really it's the same collection of buzzwords the conservatives have been tirelessly using since the early days of the campaign. Also "Conspiring" implies they're trying to hoodwink the American people - CSPAN is probably not the best place to develop a conspiracy.

With regard to stimulus plans in general, they're a joke. A quick, feel-good, 'fix' that really has no long term benefits. And this goes for the Bush plan and now Obama's. A few hundred bucks isn't going to change that people are without jobs, or laid-off and in a new job making significantly less money. All that money will do is increase the US deficit and take money away from other areas that would actually be useful to the American people and the economy.

I only posted that clip becasue it was the only view of his comments I could find. I ignore the commentary, but the language itself is very distrubing. If this was a republican that said it, it would be headline news.
Although it was not the main cause, we cannot ignore that one of the things that got us into this mess was giving $ to those that can't afford it. I'd hate to think we give jobs away to those not qualified OR pay additional money to train those not qualified. This is not a charity.........or is it?

Hey, I'm a white male construction worker. I'm offended.

Hey, I'm a white male construction worker. I'm offended.

You mean like the 8 people it takes to inspect a bridge on Bay Street in Taunton today?
4 of them were standing around drinking coffee.

Spence will soon tell me I am a Limbaugh follower, although I have never heard the man speak. Remember when McCain's advisor said American's are whiners? I wonder what the noise will be around President Obama's advisor..........crickets.......

Robert Reich is one of about two dozen economic advisors on Obama's team. This video tried to make it look like he's the only one, which is deceptive.

Obama's economic team is actually quite diverse, and I'd note that his pick for the Treas. Sec. - someone who actually implements policy - (Geithner) appears to be quite the darling of many Senate Republicans as a supremely qualified and non-partisan selection.

Reich is a big liberal, Rangle is a big liberal...big deal. They are only two people and don't alone set policy!

So my analysis of this thread is that you're using a misleading video to prove a point already contradicted by observable facts.

-spence

Hey, I'm a white male construction worker. I'm offended.

Union?

Robert Reich is one of about two dozen economic advisors on Obama's team. This video tried to make it look like he's the only one, which is deceptive.

Obama's economic team is actually quite diverse, and I'd note that his pick for the Treas. Sec. - someone who actually implements policy - (Geithner) appears to be quite the darling of many Senate Republicans as a supremely qualified and non-partisan selection.

Reich is a big liberal, Rangle is a big liberal...big deal. They are only two people and don't alone set policy!

So my analysis of this thread is that you're using a misleading video to prove a point already contradicted by observable facts.

-spence

one of Obamas advisors made a blatant racist comment and your response is "so what" :kewl:

Union?

No, Otherwise I would have an Obama sticker on my Dodge ram:biglaugh::biglaugh:

Robert Reich is one of about two dozen economic advisors on Obama's team. This video tried to make it look like he's the only one, which is deceptive.

Obama's economic team is actually quite diverse, and I'd note that his pick for the Treas. Sec. - someone who actually implements policy - (Geithner) appears to be quite the darling of many Senate Republicans as a supremely qualified and non-partisan selection.

Reich is a big liberal, Rangle is a big liberal...big deal. They are only two people and don't alone set policy!

So my analysis of this thread is that you're using a misleading video to prove a point already contradicted by observable facts.

-spence

Well it does show the direction his economic team is heading and they way they are thinking. The money will not be used to stimulate the economy it will be used to redistribute wealth. That's not an economic plan it's socialism.

Well it does show the direction his economic team is heading and they way they are thinking. The money will not be used to stimulate the economy it will be used to redistribute wealth. That's not an economic plan it's socialism.

Unfortunately, that's extremely false. Obama has selected quite a diverse crowd. Even threw you right-wingers a bone with Gates.

one of Obamas advisors made a blatant racist comment and your response is "so what" :kewl:

Reich is a pretty smart guy and I'm sure his brian is stuffed full of demographic statistics for just about every segment of the population both living and dead.

In the context of the discussion he came off to me as an academic citing a legend on a chart in his head. Percentage of workers in skilled labor by race, or something like that...

Does Reich have a history of bigoted comments? I'm not aware of any.

I'm afraid I don't see how your assertion that he made a blatantly racist comment is supported by the facts presented in that video.

-spence

Well it does show the direction his economic team is heading and they way they are thinking. The money will not be used to stimulate the economy it will be used to redistribute wealth. That's not an economic plan it's socialism.

Have to agree with JohnnyD on this one.

Besides, we do have a serious infrastructure problem in this country. Even if tax revenues did go towards civil projects, everybody benefits in the end, and the rich benefit more as they can exploit the improved infrastructure as it makes trade and business easier.

I don't think this could be reasonably called redistribution of wealth.

-spence

Glad to see the "stimulus" word in this thread.Last years' "freebie"...100% taxable.I was lead to believe this would be a true freebie by W.It ain't,must be claimed.SOB goddammit!

The new admin can keep my money and not give it back to me just so that I can repay it the following year on my return.

Let that idiot Sharpton and his worshipers keep it.What the government gives shall be taken away(later).Welfare and socialism is alive and well here.

Can't they just give a no-bid contract to Halliburton for infrastruture work?

Glad to see the "stimulus" word in this thread.Last years' "freebie"...100% taxable.I was lead to believe this would be a true freebie by W.It ain't,must be claimed.SOB goddammit!

The new admin can keep my money and not give it back to me just so that I can repay it the following year on my return.

Let that idiot Sharpton and his worshipers keep it.What the government gives shall be taken away(later).Welfare and socialism is alive and well here.


I said it had to be claimed. It is going to cost you about 35 % of the entire check.

Reich is a pretty smart guy and I'm sure his brian is stuffed full of demographic statistics for just about every segment of the population both living and dead.

In the context of the discussion he came off to me as an academic citing a legend on a chart in his head. Percentage of workers in skilled labor by race, or something like that...

Does Reich have a history of bigoted comments? I'm not aware of any.

I'm afraid I don't see how your assertion that he made a blatantly racist comment is supported by the facts presented in that video.

-spence

Let's say he said" would go to white construction workers" would that be racist?

I think the color of your skin has no place in any discussion. In a truly color blind society, it has no bearing pro or con.

Let's say he said" would go to white construction workers" would that be racist?
No, you can't take his statement out of context just so you can wave the hypocrite flag.

Given Reich's profession and the context of the discussion it's quite reasonable to assume he was citing a statistic. We do not live in a color blind society and the government does measure metrics based on race at the very least to understand the distribution and consumption of government services.

60 years ago we still had segregated schools you know.

-spence

60 years ago we still had segregated schools you know.

-spence

What the hells that got to do with anything. Alot has changed in 60 years.
I will assume, because we like to make assumptions here, that his comments do point to a plan that will benifit the poor and "underprivledged" as well as those that truly will stimulate the economy. So it's not just an economic stimulas package, it's a $$ redistribution package as well. I just heard that $200 mil will be spent on condoms. How the eff is that CHANGE.

What the hells that got to do with anything. Alot has changed in 60 years.
Do you think it's reasonable to expect a nation of 300M people to go from legal racism to be "color blind" in a generation?

Granted, a lot has changed but that doesn't mean we should expect an ideal that to date only science fiction writers have been able to imagine.


I will assume, because we like to make assumptions here, that his comments do point to a plan that will benifit the poor and "underprivledged" as well as those that truly will stimulate the economy. So it's not just an economic stimulas package, it's a $$ redistribution package as well. I just heard that $200 mil will be spent on condoms. How the eff is that CHANGE.
To say that government output should be directed to the people based on their individual contribution doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The result would be a return to a society where all wealth is contained in the hands of a priveledged few and the rest would live in poverty. One only needs to look across the border to Mexico to see what this skewed weath equation would look like.

Our entire "progressive" tax system is built on the notion of wealth redistribution, and without it we probably wouldn't have a middle class.

This is not to say that redistrubtion should be so heavy as to remove incentive from the lower classes to participate and contribute, or to remove incentive for those with wealth to invest it. History has certainly demonstrated that a balanced approach can pick up the bottom without hampering growth on top.

But the argument I see time and time again, that...wealth redistribution is incompatible with a capitalistic society simply does not make any sense.

The same could be said for regulation and free markets.

It's precisely because of the stability that such restrictions and programs provide that allows our system to sustain stable operations.

-spence

Do you think it's reasonable to expect a nation of 300M people to go from legal racism to be "color blind" in a generation?

Granted, a lot has changed but that doesn't mean we should expect an ideal that to date only science fiction writers have been able to imagine.


To say that government output should be directed to the people based on their individual contribution doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

The result would be a return to a society where all wealth is contained in the hands of a priveledged few and the rest would live in poverty. One only needs to look across the border to Mexico to see what this skewed weath equation would look like.

Our entire "progressive" tax system is built on the notion of wealth redistribution, and without it we probably wouldn't have a middle class.

This is not to say that redistrubtion should be so heavy as to remove incentive from the lower classes to participate and contribute, or to remove incentive for those with wealth to invest it. History has certainly demonstrated that a balanced approach can pick up the bottom without hampering growth on top.

But the argument I see time and time again, that...wealth redistribution is incompatible with a capitalistic society simply does not make any sense.

The same could be said for regulation and free markets.

It's precisely because of the stability that such restrictions and programs provide that allows our system to sustain stable operations.

-spence


We are talking about an "economic stimulas" plan here. We are going to add huge amounts of national dept to what our kids will have to pay off. Every aspect of this plan should be based on what it will do to jump start our economy. Not the individual, rich, poor or middle class. This does not have to be fair, it has to work, plain and simple. If it doesn't then we just threw a trillion dollars out the window and we are screwed. Do it right or don't do it at all.

I think with a flat tax we still have a middle class. I don't buy your assertion that with out a proggresive tax system we would not have a middle class.

This does not have to be fair, it has to work, plain and simple.
That's a reasonable statement to make, but our economy works because of trickle up and trickle down forces that form a natural convection. One would think that for stimulus to be most effective it should be well rounded, otherwise it would be like only stirring one side of the pot.

I think with a flat tax we still have a middle class. I don't buy your assertion that with out a proggresive tax system we would not have a middle class.

My assertion was that the progressive tax system was instrumental in forming the middle class. There may be other tax methods that could work better moving forward, although every flax tax proposal I've seen still includes progressive elements in the form of exemptions for the lower wage earners. This is still wealth redistribution, just less of it.

-spence

That's a reasonable statement to make, but our economy works because of trickle up and trickle down forces that form a natural convection. One would think that for stimulus to be most effective it should be well rounded, otherwise it would be like only stirring one side of the pot.

-spence

I agree with that. Not sure why I'm so cynical. Maybe because the same bunch of idiots ( Barney Frank for one) that got us in this mess will have a hand in the plan. I just fail to see any change in the way this is going to be implimented. I need to see a black and white (excuse the analogy) plan that I can understand and then maybe I'll be more optimistic. I'm not sure anybody could explain where the hundreds of billions went from the last bail out.

I agree with that. Not sure why I'm so cynical. Maybe because the same bunch of idiots ( Barney Frank for one) that got us in this mess will have a hand in the plan. I just fail to see any change in the way this is going to be implimented. I need to see a black and white (excuse the analogy) plan that I can understand and then maybe I'll be more optimistic. I'm not sure anybody could explain where the hundreds of billions went from the last bail out.
Frank and Dodd certainly have a hand in the housing mess, but they are only two players in a much larger production and are being used, in my opinion, as scapegoats by the right wing press. I don't think they'll be all that influential moving forward, even if they do still hold key finance positions in Congress.

The government is trying to treat a disease with multiple and complex symptoms. Just like a doctor they have to prescribe something, see how the patient responds and adjust the medication accordingly.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they might mix bad meds or not start the healing fast enough and the patient dies.

I'm positive that that's not going to happen, but I would say the government was completely firing from the hip with the first installment of the bail-out.

While I don't think Obama's stimulus is perfect or any sort of a magic fix, at least is has the benefit of delivering tangible benefits and can be administered in a transparent manner. The hundreds of billions sent to our banks simply went into a vast black hole.

Allready it looks like the Obama Administration is going to set up a website where you can see exactly how stimulus money is being spent. This is indeed change!

-spence

Frank and Dodd certainly have a hand in the housing mess, but they are only two players in a much larger production and are being used, in my opinion, as scapegoats by the right wing press. I don't think they'll be all that influential moving forward, even if they do still hold key finance positions in Congress.

The government is trying to treat a disease with multiple and complex symptoms. Just like a doctor they have to prescribe something, see how the patient responds and adjust the medication accordingly.

Of course, there's always the possibility that they might mix bad meds or not start the healing fast enough and the patient dies.

I'm positive that that's not going to happen, but I would say the government was completely firing from the hip with the first installment of the bail-out.

While I don't think Obama's stimulus is perfect or any sort of a magic fix, at least is has the benefit of delivering tangible benefits and can be administered in a transparent manner. The hundreds of billions sent to our banks simply went into a vast black hole.

Allready it looks like the Obama Administration is going to set up a website where you can see exactly how stimulus money is being spent. This is indeed change!

-spence

Maybe if just once those two misfits would admit their roll in the crisis I would have a little faith. They were not by any means minor players.

I agree transparancy will be a welcome change. As long as it's not just a bunch of props.

Spence, A 100% quote directly from Reich's blog

But if there aren’t enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

What to do? There’s no easy solution to either dilemma…

People can be trained relatively quickly for these sorts of jobs, as well as many infrastructure j0bs generated by the stimulus — installing new pipes for water and sewage systems, repairing and upgrading equipment, basic construction — but contractors have to be nudged both to provide the training and to do the hiring.

I’d suggest that all contracts entered into with stimulus funds require contractors to provide at least 20 percent of jobs to the long-term unemployed and to people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. And at least 2 percent of project funds should be allocated to such training. In addition, advantage should be taken of buildings trades apprenticeships — wich must be fully available to women and minorities.


So I guess I missed that this ecomnomic dilema we are in is due to a lack of unskilled workers. That WAS NOT a cause of this problem.50% of my team was layed off a month ago, very talented, educated, hard working people. SO our stimulus $ should go to train people?
This current economy is putting BILLIONS ion he hands of democrat administration and democrat congress. They are drooling at the opportunity to throw BILLIONS at the people that put them in power, NOT the people that keep this country moving.
Treating people differently due the color of their skin IS RACISM!
QUOTE - And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.