Obamamerica part 1

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

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"

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by 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.