Obama Economic Advisor Robert Reich: No Stimulous Money for White Construction Workers – Rangel: The Middle Class is to Busy to Notice What We Are Doing
Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009
Remember how we told you spending by the government rarely helps an economy because the money is spent for political reasons and not economic ones? This video of Obama economic advisor Robert Reich giving testimony in Congress really says it all.
Lou Dobbs:
Michelle Malkin and Neil Cavuto:
Thanks to Hotair.com for the Malkin clip.
Rasmussen Poll says:
January 23, 2009
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters worry that Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.Only 17% have the opposite concern and are more worried that Congress and the president will cut taxes too much.
Even David Brooks of the NYT says that this is too much for him:
There’s also a very strong case to be made for long-term government reform. America could fundamentally rethink its infrastructure policies – create a new model adapted to new modes of community-building. It could fundamentally rethink human capital policies – create a lifelong menu of learning options, from pre-K programs to service opportunities for the elderly.
But the stimulus bill emerging in the House of Representatives does neither of these things. The bill marked up Wednesday in the Appropriations Committee is a muddled mixture of short-term stimulus haste and long-term spending commitments. It is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach – rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact.
The bill has three essential failings. First, it lacks any strategic vision. This $825 billion bill has to be passed within weeks. There’s no time for fundamental rethinking or new approaches. Instead, there’s a sloppy profusion of 152 different appropriations – off-the-shelf ideas that mostly create costlier versions of the status quo.
The IUSB Vision Weblog 
Anon said
Nice blog. I agree that the spending bill is getting kinda pork heavy, but in this case these people all seem to be misunderstanding what Reiche actually said:
“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. I have nothing against white male construction workers; I’m just saying that there are lots of other people who have needs as well.
And, therefore in my remarks, I have suggested to you, and I am certainly happy to talk about it more, ways it which the money can be… criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women… people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals”
My take is that all he’s trying to convey is that the money should be broadly distributed across many demographics. Apparently he has a concern that some distribution schemes would favor a narrow demographic, and he wants to make sure the process is fair.
I don’t think it is fair to construe his comments as suggesting that white males should be excluded.
….just my two cents.
[Of course he was suggesting that white males should be excluded – but let me help you out here.
When you build a bridge is that a welfare program? Do you want the best people to build the bridge as safely and effectively as possible while keeping prices down and the cost of infrastructure efficient? Or do you want who is picked to construct the bridge made soley on a political decision (can you say kickbacks)? Aren’t political decisions often made in a government official’s best interests and not yours and mine?
When money is spent foolishly or inefficiently does that create more actual wealth? If this is a stimulous program don’t we want the most bang for our buck… or is it a political playoff program?
Take a look at this – https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/drudge-335000000-for-std-prevention-in-economic-stimulus-bill/
– Editor]
nick holleck said
No on stimulus @ this time. Vote NO!!!!!! until the public knows what is in this pork bill. Your vote will have consequences. This needs the sunshine it deserves. What are you hiding by this rush !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nick holleck said
Vote NO!!!!!!! on this stimulus bill.
john Stanley said
no stimulous period!!
Lynne Fisk said
VOTE NO STIMULUS!
marilyn linhardt said
Please vote NO on stimulous package. We need to fix the economic problem ourself – NOT THE GOVERNMENT. We are becoming a socialistic form of Government. We do not want this. Please wake up and see what an average person like me can see. NO TO STIMULOUS BILL.
Steve Steele said
This bill will give the politicians in Washington more power to reward you for “good behavior” and punish you for questioning their decisions. Taxes will be raised, but those on capitol hill do not care…..they don’t pay their taxes anyway. Just look at the recent tax dodger nominees. And statements like no money for ” white male construction workers ” Look around.. white male construction workers are the minority.
jill duff said
I vote no to stimulous package.
[Thanks for reading Jill – Editor]
Backwater Report » We might as well admit it said
[…] https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/obama-economic-advisor-robert-reich-no-stimulous-money-fo… […]
will said
Sure, let’s have major construction done by illiterate and non-literate cultures, so what if the blueprints aren’t read correctly?, what difference does that make?. It has nothing to do with constructing anyhow, it’s about a program in which a person is goes to an address everday (or as often as they absolutely have to), and then they are given a check. Ask Roland Burris for more details on this and similar programs.