Obamamerica part 1

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[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

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

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

[basswipe]

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.

[Joe]

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

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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.