Skin color a top priority in stimulus/infrastructure plan
- Thread starter B_starinvestor
- Start date
I saw this a few days ago. Pisses me off, what if we were to turn the cards around and say let's make sure these jobs don't go to black male workers, or latino male workers, and see how that plays out. I think the whole "skilled" workers thing comes from their idiotic belief that white collar workers aren't losing jobs right now, which couldn't be any furhter from the truth. Plus, most of the jobs Obama wants to create are shitty manual labor jobs. Generally people who perform manual labor for a living aren't the most skilled people around. Who would go to college just so they could build roads?
Jobs are jobs. Like it or not, unskilled labor, those who work the "shitty manual labor" jobs are the backbone of any nation. Otherwise you get what we've had, a country living on a bubble, importing more than it exports and awaiting an inevitable decline.
I think there should focus more on the K-12 grades than the constant pounding of college-college-college into kids' heads.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I'm actually going to TRY and not resort to my usual sarcasm when addressing you. Remember, the key word here is TRY. Please don't make me regret it.
Have you seen the workforce demographic in our country? Let's forget some of the news articles and stories on the web and go to the source. Let's go by numbers posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Keep in mind, the numbers on these charts were calculated and rounded off by 1,000 to save space. But we'll do the full math just to prove a point. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Chart one: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat9.pdf
According to that chart, the number of employed persons by occupation (based on sex and age) is 78,254,000 for males and 67,792,000 for females.
Chart two: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat10.pdf
This chart breaks down employed persons by America's top four racial classes based on numbers: White, Black, Hispanic & Asian. According to this chart, the total number of people employed in this country (including all races and sexes) is 146,047,000.
Number of White people employed: 119,792,000
Number of Black people employed: 16,051,000
Number of Hispanic people employed: 20,382,000
Number of Asian people employed: 6,839,000
That means 82% of our workforce is composed of white/caucasion people.
Out of the 119,792,000 people that are counted, 65,289,000 are white males. That makes 54% of the total workforce in that category alone, and about 45% of the entire workforce of our country. Skilled or not, they make up the largest conglomerate of our working nation.
No matter what way you look at it, and discarding ALL of the excuses, insults and scapegoats that are emitted by the right or the left (and you know EXACTLY what they are), the workforce has benefitted the white male. The only closest demographic is women and they only make up 46% of the employed in America. That includes all races. So is anyone really penalizing skill workers? Not at all. If anything, the new infrastructure is being put in place to encourage minorities to work since they only make up 18% of the total workforce, and to encourage more women to work as well. In the end, as long as we can create new jobs at the same pace as these initiatives, then we can raise the numbers of the employed and further diversify the workplace without having to take jobs away from already employed, "skilled workers". Nobody in congress is suggesting that you're going to have to give up your job to a minority, starinvestor, so don't panic.
As for the rest of the "Stimulus Package"... it would be foolish to think that only low income, unskilled people will get help. However, this statement can only be cleared up based on your definition of low income and how it conflicts with the stipulations made by the new administration. Are you part of that equation? Are you a family man who makes less than 6 figures a year or a single person whose yearly income doesn't equal or exceed the necessary amount to qualify? For if you're not, then not only have you made enough money to live off of, you don't need any extra assistance. In other words, if you're not poor then why are you even worried about this? Are you struggling to make your ends meet or do you just want more to support your way of living?
And besides that, just how much do you think "unskilled" people are going to get? Enough to live any respectable life, or just enough so they can actually live?
D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
Experimental Member
I'm convinced that neither party is a party of "fiscal conservatism" or fiscal responsibility. At least I haven't witnessed it.
Both parties spend liberally. Democrats spend - and they tell you they're spending (here in CA a lot of democratic lawmakers specifically craft bills aiding minorities, not so much in the spirit of altruism, but with a shrewd eye out that these minorities will continue to vote democratic). And republicans and "conservatives" spend (and not just on "defense") while ignoring the billions they are actually spending - as they parrot the old line about believing in "smaller government".
George W. Bush is sometimes referred to now as the "Mother of All Big Spenders". When Bush won re-election in 2004 and increased republican majorities in both the House and Senate, both foreign and domestic spending soared to unprecedented levels. There's a sound reason why the public always seems to trust the democrats more on the economy (a big deciding factor in this past election). no matter how many times the conservative congresspersons go on and on about "fiscal responsiblity" and "smaller government", talking to CNN's and Fox News' television cameras.
Barack Obama is proposing $825 billion in an "economic recovery plan", a number almost everybody assumes will grow. There's "stimulus money" involved, going out to citizens again (dems feel that giving money back to the populace, the "little people", to put into circulation is a better route for economic recovery that giving tax breaks and cash to big corporations - the conservative theory being that big corporations will hire more and that their resulting profits will somehow "trickle down" to the average taxpayer). Obama is also taking a page out of FDR's "New Deal" - pumping up the economy through good old-fashioned public works programs. A huge chunk of taxpayer money is going towards rebuilding America's aging, failing infrastructure: rebuilding roads and bridges, repairing schools and public housing (Obama wants computers in every classroom), highway construction and reconstruction.
Personally, I think it's high time this country got a federal makeover. No better time to do it than when the national unemployment rate is rising (the unemployment rate here in Los Angeles county just jumped to 9.9% for December, 2008 figures). The combined costs of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is said to be close to 3 trillion dollars. We investors (the taxpayers) have seen very little return for our investment money: we've seemed to get nothing out of the deal. After we leave these countries, we are pretty much left back where we started, minus Saddam Hussein. We've gutted Iraq and have created fresh enemies many times over.
I say: if we're going to spend money like drunken sailors, then spend the money here, in our own backyards.
Both parties spend liberally. Democrats spend - and they tell you they're spending (here in CA a lot of democratic lawmakers specifically craft bills aiding minorities, not so much in the spirit of altruism, but with a shrewd eye out that these minorities will continue to vote democratic). And republicans and "conservatives" spend (and not just on "defense") while ignoring the billions they are actually spending - as they parrot the old line about believing in "smaller government".
George W. Bush is sometimes referred to now as the "Mother of All Big Spenders". When Bush won re-election in 2004 and increased republican majorities in both the House and Senate, both foreign and domestic spending soared to unprecedented levels. There's a sound reason why the public always seems to trust the democrats more on the economy (a big deciding factor in this past election). no matter how many times the conservative congresspersons go on and on about "fiscal responsiblity" and "smaller government", talking to CNN's and Fox News' television cameras.
Barack Obama is proposing $825 billion in an "economic recovery plan", a number almost everybody assumes will grow. There's "stimulus money" involved, going out to citizens again (dems feel that giving money back to the populace, the "little people", to put into circulation is a better route for economic recovery that giving tax breaks and cash to big corporations - the conservative theory being that big corporations will hire more and that their resulting profits will somehow "trickle down" to the average taxpayer). Obama is also taking a page out of FDR's "New Deal" - pumping up the economy through good old-fashioned public works programs. A huge chunk of taxpayer money is going towards rebuilding America's aging, failing infrastructure: rebuilding roads and bridges, repairing schools and public housing (Obama wants computers in every classroom), highway construction and reconstruction.
Personally, I think it's high time this country got a federal makeover. No better time to do it than when the national unemployment rate is rising (the unemployment rate here in Los Angeles county just jumped to 9.9% for December, 2008 figures). The combined costs of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is said to be close to 3 trillion dollars. We investors (the taxpayers) have seen very little return for our investment money: we've seemed to get nothing out of the deal. After we leave these countries, we are pretty much left back where we started, minus Saddam Hussein. We've gutted Iraq and have created fresh enemies many times over.
I say: if we're going to spend money like drunken sailors, then spend the money here, in our own backyards.
WillTom, I agree with many of your points here, but throwing around a number like $3 Trillion on the Iraq/Afghan is ridiculous. You're off by almost 75%, or $2.2 trillion.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Let's say we agree that money spent in the two war fronts was a waste (and I'm not conceding that), Pelosi and Obama will spend more than that solely on the new stimulus package.
It will stimulate nothing but new debt. $300 doesn't do much of anything for anyone. Maybe catch up on some past due debt for most people. No one will be rushing to buy a car, boat or new house with $300.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Posts
- 1,315
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 2,470
- Points
- 443
- Location
- California (United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I was never a fan of bush and his policies, but hate never came to my mind...all you libs do is hate...you are so predictable.
Why? Because I have a problem with people that have personal responsibility and strive to become skilled...that are shirked by a stimulus plan?
Johnny, don't waste your time learning a trade or a skill...Obama will take care of you. Why waste the time and effort?
Ah, that's not hatred. That's questioning somebody that is sending the wrong message.
Somewhat off topic, but I think that race based affirmative action is going to give way to merit and needs based affirmative action. And the race part will simply be that if 13% of the population is black then 13% of the aid will go to that group.
This will probably happen relatively soon (8-10 years) and to make this possible local, state, and federal govt. need to make primary and secondary education equal across the board. You cannot have slum schools and suburban schools. I think separate has been established despite busing and so what is important is things being equal.
I hope Obama is able to accomplish this leveling of the playing field and after that let the cards land were they may. Ethnic culture will be the determining factor.
This will probably happen relatively soon (8-10 years) and to make this possible local, state, and federal govt. need to make primary and secondary education equal across the board. You cannot have slum schools and suburban schools. I think separate has been established despite busing and so what is important is things being equal.
I hope Obama is able to accomplish this leveling of the playing field and after that let the cards land were they may. Ethnic culture will be the determining factor.
You're continuing to misrepresent Reich's position as favoring the unskilled over the skilled. Perhaps if your party told the truth a little more often instead of resorting to lies and distortions like the ones you've told today, John McCain would be taking care of Johnny instead.
But please -- continue to do what you've been doing for ages, and encourage your Republican senators to do the same. 2010's right around the corner, and we only need to snag one more seat to get to sixty...
You know that what came out of Reich's mouth was wrong. If he misspoke, he misspoke. But you can't spin it away.
You roll over for this Administration worse than the media does.
If I ever want to know what the talking points are for the right on any given day, I can just look at whatever Starinvestor is posting.
Well the campaign "allegedly" wasn't about race, but Obama's policies sure are.
The sheep are rationalizing again.
The sheep are rationalizing again.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
So sayeth the man with an "Impeach Obama" avatar just a week into his presidency. Your irony is bigger than Querecome's dick. Except the second part is something everyone would rather focus on.
Similar threads
