Social Engineering And A Waste Of Taxpayer Money

This video from 2009 involves members of Congress and the regime discussing the economic recovery plan (the stimulus) and how it should be spent. The video has comments inserted which are appropriate and worthy of discussion.

Notice how these folks are discussing how to spend our money and that the concern is that skilled white construction workers will get the jobs building bridges. The discussion is how to ensure people who might not have any skills get some of the recovery money. A video comment asks why don’t we hire the best people to build the bridge regardless of what color they are?

And excellent point except the stimulus money was not designed to stimulate the economy, it was designed to pay off political friends and to engage in social welfare. These people don’t care if bridges actually get built (have any been built) and they don’t care that bridges which might get built are built by people who are less skilled or unskilled so long as the money goes to minorities and other “disadvantaged” people.

Charlie Rangel starts discussing the flow of money and how the federal government is impeded by the pesky state legislatures. He says they need to come up with some method to bypass all that and force the states to take the money. This is how states get federal money with all kinds of strings attached. Robert Reich then says that it needs to be presented to governors and they can either sign or not but to hold them accountable.

In the end, Rangle assures everyone they will not have to worry about the middle class objecting because they will be too worried about putting food on the table and clothing their children.

In other words, don’t be concerned about the middle class. They will be too busy working to make ends meet to notice the social engineering taking place at the federal level with their hard earned money.

I guess Rangel was wrong. Looks like a lot of the middle class did pay attention and showed that in the 2010 election.

This is the goal of Democrats and particularly this regime. They want to redistribute wealth and they want to spend money on social programs under the guise of stimulating the economy.

Our families will have to drive over the bridges built by the least skilled workers.

Well, that sort of makes sense. This country (and by extension our families) is being led by the least skilled among us…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

11 Responses to “Social Engineering And A Waste Of Taxpayer Money”

  1. Adam says:

    This is another case of an interesting economics conversation which is sliced and diced and captioned to attack it for an agenda it’s not really promoting. Social engineering? Oh, no! As if it’s some evil thing, right?

    Your comments:

    “A video comment asks why don’t we hire the best people to build the bridge regardless of what color they are?”

    If you watch the full length video you’ll notice nobody suggests we build bridges with unqualified individuals. There was just concern that the spending and projects get targeted to all of those in need and not just white male construction workers.

    “In the end, Rangle assures everyone they will not have to worry about the middle class objecting because they will be too worried about putting food on the table and clothing their children.”

    Rangel said no such thing. He’s not talking about the middle class objecting. He’s simply suggesting the middle class is less at risk during the recession than the lower class. I’m not sure where the context comes from that the middle class was being cheated by the stimulus.

    This is just reality. The unemployment rate for the lowest income Americans is over 3 times that of the middle class. We’re talking in the area of 30% during the recession. Unemployment for black Americans is almost twice that of white Americans. Unemployment for whites topped at 9.1%. For blacks it topped at 16.0%.

    To be clear though: These differences always exist even when there’s not a recession. It’s just more painful when the typical rate goes from 9% to to 16% for black people.

    • Big Dog says:

      Is there anything you won’t spin? Reich says that the stimulus will do best with infrastructure jobs but he does not want the money to go to white construction workers (where is your outrage at this racism) and then says the money needs to be spent on the minorities who might and those on unemployment.

      The two are different issues. If he is concerned it will be spent on the best qualified then he implies he wants it spent on the less qualified.

      And you should be asking how finding ways to divert money away from projects to help people is within the authority of the stimulus and how it helps build bridges.

      Rangel said we did not have to worry about the middle class. They will be too concerned about putting food on the table or clothing heir children, not that they were less affected. He inplies that they will be too busy to notice what is going on.

      I wonder what your tone would have been had a Republican appointee said that he wanted to spend money fast and the best way to do it was on infrastructure but he is concerned that the money would go to the best qualified blacks.

      Never mind, I already know how you would act. You see racism everywhere but where it actually exists.

      • Adam says:

        “If he is concerned it will be spent on the best qualified then he implies he wants it spent on the less qualified.”

        Notice he contrasted highly skilled professionals even with white male construction workers? The entire conversation is simply a suggestion that if we were targeting infrastructure spending then the jobs it filled should have been in the areas most needed. If you were long term unemployed, a minority, or a woman then you should get the chance to fill that position too. That is not to imply that you fill the position even if you’re not qualified to do so. It’s also not saying that white male construction workers can’t fill those positions. It’s just a suggestion that more criteria be used for filling those positions.

        “[Rangel] implies that they will be too busy to notice what is going on.”

        Again, no such context or statement exists in the clips where they are talking about the middle class not noticing anything or being tricked. You cannot find such a context.

        “And you should be asking how finding ways to divert money away from projects to help people is within the authority of the stimulus and how it helps build bridges.”

        I’m not sure what that means really. But let me remind you that the point of this kind of stimulus spending was two fold. One, it was to boost economic growth. Two, in boosting that growth it was supposed to build infrastructure at the same time. We see these million dollar stimulus signs all across the US pointing to roadwork and bridge work and all kinds of construction. It put people to work and it made travel better and safer. That’s hardly digging a hole and filling it back in, wouldn’t you say?

        • Big Dog says:

          Yes, I have seen lots of signs but have only seen one place where work was actually going on. If the least qualified did the work (or not the most qualified) then I would hardly say we are safer.

          You see what you want to see and I know what your response would have been had they mentioned race the other way in a Republican administration. Hell, you guys think Katrina was a disaster because Bush hates black people.

          • Adam says:

            I think context and facts matter greatly in issues of race. Suggesting you hope that jobs don’t all just go to white construction workers at a time when twice to three times as many minorities are unemployed is not the same as suggesting you hope jobs don’t all go just to black people. Why is that hard for you to see?

            For the record I think Katrina was a disaster at the federal level because Bush appointed incompetent people to oversee FEMA and other matters at home. But then again he appointed incompetent people at pretty much every level so it figures.

            It’s funny how your side beclowns itself every time you rip Obama for things like the underwear bomber or things like his apparent failure to do what you want him to do about the storms in the South. You voted for and supported a president that presided over 9/11, Katrina, 2 recessions, and a net decrease in jobs over his tenure. Other than that Bush was a pretty damn good President, right? Your side would have voted a 3rd time for the man if that were still possible.

            • Blake says:

              Oh no you didn’t- I can’t believe you still think Katrina was Bush’s fault, when Nagin (Massa Chocklit City) had the buses to get people out , but not the brains to use them, or The Governor not knowing (there’s that liberal ignorance again)that YOU HAVE TO ASK THE FEDS FOR HELP- it’s that silly Constitutional thing again- libs really should learn to read.
              And yes, despite the mistakes he did make, if it was a choice between Dubya and Barrie, The big O is goin’ down.

  2. Big Dog says:

    The federal response to 9/11 was great. Despite the confusion the feds did what they were supposed to.

    As for Katrina, we went over this before. There were failures at all levels but they started with the incompetent people running state and local government. PERIOD.

    I understand that since you have never been involved in a disaster you might not understand the role of FEMA. It was there when it was supposed to be and mobilized people from all across the country. Things could have been better but it was the local level that caused the obstacles. If perhaps federal help had been requested we might have gotten there sooner. If perhaps they had evacuated the city (a local responsibility) the feds would not have had to spend so much time pulling people off rooftops. Maybe if they had leadership at the local level it could have gone better.
    You say Bush appointed incompetent people. Louisiana and New Orleans elected them and look what they got.
    Your guy presided over the mess in the Gulf and it was a disaster.

    And if you feel so adamantly about Bush, explain why you worship Obama. He is presiding over a recession, he has been a disaster with economy and has had a net decrease in jobs. All the things you put on Bush as making him a bad guy.

    And Obama is inexperienced, incompetent and has a regime full of incompetent people.

    • Blake says:

      Too true- not a one of Obama’s lackeys has ever held a real job, or had to balance a budget, and it shows,
      No ALL they care about is their muddled “doctrine” of “Shared wealth”, and “social justice” neither of which work in the real world, and when applied, do nothing but FUBAR things worse than they would have been had things been left alone.

    • Adam says:

      “The federal response to 9/11 was great.”

      If by great you mean a great big disaster.

      “And if you feel so adamantly about Bush, explain why you worship Obama.”

      All this talk about worship, and messiah just because I voted for a guy that energized the liberal base and spanked your side in the election? No, I don’t worship Obama. I do agree with many of his actions as President though. Did you worship Bush? Was Bush your messiah?

      “He is presiding over a recession, he has been a disaster with economy and has had a net decrease in jobs.”

      We know the recession and the job losses did not begin under Obama so I don’t see your point. You probably want to tell me the first recession didn’t start under Bush but we know that’s just something your side has made up. Obama will have a net increase in jobs under his administration before the 2012 election. Over the long haul there could be other downturns, disasters, poor decisions that will haunt Obama but so far all you have is hot air and this sad need to attack Obama for all the things Bush actually did do badly.

      I’m not saying everything in my list is the direct result of Bush but when you measure the 8 years of his administration it gets very hard to find something positive that came out of it. The only thing I can ever think of that he accomplished for your side was appointing justices to the SCOTUS.

  3. Ogre says:

    Blake, a tip: Anything that happened that liberals don’t like, that happened before 2012 was Bush’s fault. Katrina, 9/11, the Vietnam War, Apartheid, the last ice age, extinction of dinosaurs — all Bush’s fault.

    Logic and facts have no room in the life of the liberal.

    • Adam says:

      “Logic and facts have no room in the life of the liberal.”

      This coming from a guy who has shown no particular need to demonstrate either fact or logic during his growing pile of rants against “freedom haters” on this site.