• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

From Robert Reich's Blog

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Here's what he said previous;

"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 — which must be fully available to women and minorities."

We have two problems here. First, Reich did indeed talk about excluding white males from access by advising Congress to create “criteria” for their exclusion in favor of … well, everyone else. It’s rather absurd to argue otherwise, when Reich explicitly called for action to limit their access to these jobs. Reich takes the rather cowardly way out by not explaining the meaning of his televised remarks to Congress, instead airily referring to “context” when Reich has made clear that he wants government to treat infrastructure spending as a welfare program rather than a construction project. In fact, Reich was the one who specified “white male construction workers” as one group to avoid hiring. What is that, if not exclusion?

The second problem is the actual advice to treat the stimulus as a welfare program. When we build bridges and roads, we need to ensure that we do work of the highest quality. Many of the jobs created in these areas won’t have skill requirements, but many of them will — and we should hire the best people available to ensure the highest quality work. When we travel over these bridges and roads, we want to assume they’re safe and well built. If one of them collapses from substandard work, the families of the dead won’t be comforted to know that politically correct hiring prevailed over skill and experience.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Basically hypocrit, Husker, Tammy the vocal, and hoppy take the majority of their posts from a couple of sources, sources who are quoted over and over on the Internet by the same one-note-song ringwing nutcase websites.

If you read a post by these guys, go look on the Internet and I challenge you to find a single REPUTABLE (yes, mainstream) source that discusses their dreck.

Sometimes mainstream is a good thing :wink:

So who posted the BS about Reich was posting blather, untrue and libelous blather.

Actually, I took it from one source, Robert Reich. I just found some folks who put it into words better than me. I suggest you leftwing zombies read what he said and think about it.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Reader here are Robert Reich's words, on video, unless it is dubbed!

Ruch didn't say it at all, he may have repeated it.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Do you really believe that taking long-term unemployed and people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level--offering them training- and then jobs to get them off the welfare/Aid rolls is welfare... :???:

I thought thats what we were trying to do- get people to working and supporting themselves and their families and off welfare.... :???:

Over the years I have seen a couple of very good training/work programs work quite well for low income, less educated, and what was welfare recipients...It didn't take all of them off the welfare rolls- as some didn't complete it- but I saw so many successful ones that went on to lead entirely new lives, that I always thought it was well worth the money spent...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
Here's what he said previous;

"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 — which must be fully available to women and minorities."

We have two problems here. First, Reich did indeed talk about excluding white males from access by advising Congress to create “criteria” for their exclusion in favor of … well, everyone else. It’s rather absurd to argue otherwise, when Reich explicitly called for action to limit their access to these jobs. Reich takes the rather cowardly way out by not explaining the meaning of his televised remarks to Congress, instead airily referring to “context” when Reich has made clear that he wants government to treat infrastructure spending as a welfare program rather than a construction project. In fact, Reich was the one who specified “white male construction workers” as one group to avoid hiring. What is that, if not exclusion?

The second problem is the actual advice to treat the stimulus as a welfare program. When we build bridges and roads, we need to ensure that we do work of the highest quality. Many of the jobs created in these areas won’t have skill requirements, but many of them will — and we should hire the best people available to ensure the highest quality work. When we travel over these bridges and roads, we want to assume they’re safe and well built. If one of them collapses from substandard work, the families of the dead won’t be comforted to know that politically correct hiring prevailed over skill and experience.

You don't know much about government contracting, do you? The government has a very strong Small Business Administration which ensures that small, disadvantaged, minority owned, women owned, VETERAN owned etc. business get a certain percentage of the government's contracts, by law. Period. I'm not defending it but it's what is done, right or wrong, efficient or not. By all administrations.

You have amazingly twisted Reich's words.

I haven't twisted anything. He said what he said. This isn't so much stimulus as it is more flipping liberal welfare. Construction projects take a lot of time to even get drawn up, this isn't about stimulating the economy. Reich is taking the typical liberal stand that racism and discrimination is wrong, but then make it a law. Totally hypocritical and damaging not only to the economy, but the people they are trying to help.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Do you really believe that taking long-term unemployed and people with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level--offering them training- and then jobs to get them off the welfare/Aid rolls is welfare... :???:

I thought thats what we were trying to do- get people to working and supporting themselves and their families and off welfare.... :???:

Over the years I have seen a couple of very good training/work programs work quite well for low income, less educated, and what was welfare recipients...It didn't take all of them off the welfare rolls- as some didn't complete it- but I saw so many successful ones that went on to lead entirely new lives, that I always thought it was well worth the money spent...

What sense is there in going to the expense of training people for construction jobs when there are construction workers that are already trained and need a job just as bad?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I thought thats what we were trying to do- get people to working and supporting themselves and their families and off welfare.... Say what?

I thought they were trying to get these infrastructure programs going immediately, that means you don't have time to train etc. the stumulus money should go to those that are already trained and about to get laid off.

Reader, are you saying that all these construction jobs are going to be government contracts?

Most of them will be administrated by local governments, which use local construction companies.

Unless you think that all this construction is going to happen in DC?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I hate to break it to you Husker but construction jobs that are government contracts are going to small businesses, minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, etc. and have been FOREVER. By law.

How is that not mandated discrimination? You can't see it for what it is, just as you can't see Reich's comments for what they are. So Reich will give a few white males a job, say for the sake of arguement 100, but then he's going to give the rest to minorities. I'd like to know how he figures that Jose Sanchez or Shaniqua Johnson are more deserving of the job than white guy #101?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
I thought thats what we were trying to do- get people to working and supporting themselves and their families and off welfare.... Say what?

I thought they were trying to get these infrastructure programs going immediately, that means you don't have time to train etc. the stumulus money should go to those that are already trained and about to get laid off.

Reader, are you saying that all these construction jobs are going to be government contracts?

Most of them will be administrated by local governments, which use local construction companies.

Unless you think that all this construction is going to happen in DC?

I think they are only talking 20% of the hirees here....

The programs I saw years ago actually paid them while in training too-- which included not only construction, electrical jobs, mechanics, trucking- but office type jobs, accounting, and nursing and medical fields...

That would get money back out in circulation from minute one - and hopefully take care of much of the ever rising by the day unemployment problem-- along with hopefully ending many's dependency on welfare/aid..
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I thought thats what we were trying to do- get people to working and supporting themselves and their families and off welfare.... Say what?

I thought they were trying to get these infrastructure programs going immediately, that means you don't have time to train etc. the stumulus money should go to those that are already trained and about to get laid off.

Reader, are you saying that all these construction jobs are going to be government contracts?

Most of them will be administrated by local governments, which use local construction companies.

Unless you think that all this construction is going to happen in DC?

I think they are only talking 20% of the hirees here....

The programs I saw years ago actually paid them while in training too-- which included not only construction, electrical jobs, mechanics, trucking- but office type jobs, accounting, and nursing and medical fields...

That would get money back out in circulation from minute one - and hopefully take care of much of the ever rising by the day unemployment problem-- along with hopefully ending many's dependency on welfare/aid..

You could get more money into the economy faster by hiring people who are already trained and need the jobs, too. Plus, you would get a better job done. Shows you that this is a welfare bill.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Many low-income and low-skilled workers -- women as well as men -- could be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient and renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic systems;

most of the jobs are done by licensed professionals, obviously the people writing these things have never been involved with the trades!

Speaking of trades, how many will be union work, I'm sure they are not going to let the inexperienced start "wiring"!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Look up the Small Business Administration and see the percentage goals for contracts to go to small businesses during the Bush Administration. This is how your government works, to make sure that the government does not only give work to large businesses with influential lobbyists and to promote the rise of new companies, as well as to make sure that returning veterans have a chance to make a good living.

I imagine that the states also have a small business administration.

You're putting up a strawman, Reader. I'm fully aware of how things work, I'm asking you to justify mandatory racism and sexism without hiding behind the excuse "That's how it is".
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Many low-income and low-skilled workers -- women as well as men -- could be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient and renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic systems;

most of the jobs are done by licensed professionals, obviously the people writing these things have never been involved with the trades!

Speaking of trades, how many will be union work, I'm sure they are not going to let the inexperienced start "wiring"!

Take a look at what Reich has said about Unions. Maybe he'll get everybody on board the UAW.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
I thought they were trying to get these infrastructure programs going immediately, that means you don't have time to train etc. the stumulus money should go to those that are already trained and about to get laid off.

Reader, are you saying that all these construction jobs are going to be government contracts?

Most of them will be administrated by local governments, which use local construction companies.

Unless you think that all this construction is going to happen in DC?

I think they are only talking 20% of the hirees here....

The programs I saw years ago actually paid them while in training too-- which included not only construction, electrical jobs, mechanics, trucking- but office type jobs, accounting, and nursing and medical fields...

That would get money back out in circulation from minute one - and hopefully take care of much of the ever rising by the day unemployment problem-- along with hopefully ending many's dependency on welfare/aid..

You could get more money into the economy faster by hiring people who are already trained and need the jobs, too. Plus, you would get a better job done. Shows you that this is a welfare bill.

Then tell me again how successful Bush was as President or Repubs were with 12 years control of Congress at ending and getting people off welfare/federal-state aid :???:

Time for change- and to give the other side a chance......

Repubs are always bitching they should make them work for their money- sounds to me like thats what Obama is doing....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I'm asking you to learn about the Small Business Administration. The stuff you're ranting about is part of the way our government works and has been as vocally backed by the Bush and other Republican administration as by the Dems.

What Reich blogged was no different.

That is my point.


Reich is supposed to be talking about a stimulus. Since when do quotas and other racist policies figure into a stimulus? Isn't the purpose behind a stimulus to jump start the economy in the most efficient way possible?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
I think they are only talking 20% of the hirees here....

The programs I saw years ago actually paid them while in training too-- which included not only construction, electrical jobs, mechanics, trucking- but office type jobs, accounting, and nursing and medical fields...

That would get money back out in circulation from minute one - and hopefully take care of much of the ever rising by the day unemployment problem-- along with hopefully ending many's dependency on welfare/aid..

You could get more money into the economy faster by hiring people who are already trained and need the jobs, too. Plus, you would get a better job done. Shows you that this is a welfare bill.

Then tell me again how successful Bush was as President or Repubs were with 12 years control of Congress at ending and getting people off welfare/federal-state aid :???:

Time for change- and to give the other side a chance......

Repubs are always bitching they should make them work for their money- sounds to me like thats what Obama is doing....

This isn't about Bush, it's about Obama trying to disguise a welfare program as stimulus.

Now, tell me the sense in hiring people that need a job that you have to train when there are people already trained who need the same job just as bad?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
You could get more money into the economy faster by hiring people who are already trained and need the jobs, too. Plus, you would get a better job done. Shows you that this is a welfare bill.

Then tell me again how successful Bush was as President or Repubs were with 12 years control of Congress at ending and getting people off welfare/federal-state aid :???:

Time for change- and to give the other side a chance......

Repubs are always bitching they should make them work for their money- sounds to me like thats what Obama is doing....

This isn't about Bush, it's about Obama trying to disguise a welfare program as stimulus.

Now, tell me the sense in hiring people that need a job that you have to train when there are people already trained who need the same job just as bad?

I think if you look at the plan 80% of those hired will be those you described...The other 20% will be those that hopefully they can take off the longtime unemployment rolls and government teat...If they do OJT training- where those folks are getting paid while they train- that money is going back into the economy as stimulus....
Thats WIN-WIN in my book...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If they do OJT training- where those folks are getting paid while they train- that money is going back into the economy as stimulus...

What would this accomplish, if the jobs they are doing will put someone else on unemployment and cost the same to support?

What about putting ranchers on unemployment and have welfare recips trained to do their jobs? How long would it take to train them? What efficiencies would you lose in the mean time?
 
Top