Yes - helping the underserved, underprivileged and those who have been systematically deterred is right.
Oh my god you are so full of shit. I'm out, man. I made it clear from the beginning what I read, clear as day. You're inventing your reality as you go as you see fit, just like the previous back-and-forth we had.
This.
Page 42 through 55 is what you are going to want to.read and after reading said section. L oh ****ing L at this bullshit pandering.
My buddy just did the same with his environmental engineering company also in NJ. He is giving 51% to a white woman that worked for him for the past 5 years. He did so so he can land jobs where women owners get priority when gov't contracts are awarded. It seems a bit risky to me, but he's stated that he believes the pros far outweigh the cons.
O I'll bet it gets ransacked in court, you realize that one person proving this is bullshit and they have been wrong done by regarding this is it getting its ass kicked right? (Just like the farming bill)
Its 25% for actual infrastructure the rest is pure PORK!!The infrastructure bill the Senate passed Tuesday discriminates against white people at every turn.
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not merit. Minority businesses and neighborhoods hold the inside track. If you’re white, you’re low-priority.
The bill includes grants to install solar or wind technologies and generate jobs in areas decimated by closing coal mines or coal-fired electric plants. Here’s the catch: When contractors bid, the bill says minority-owned businesses will get selected first. Bad news for small-time white contractors in depressed areas.
The same is true for the bill’s proposals to improve traffic patterns in cities. Contractors and subcontractors get priority only if they’re owned by minorities or women. White male business owners can take a hike.
Americans should be outraged — but not surprised. After all, President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act, passed in March, also put into place an ugly system of discrimination against whites. It offered debt relief to black farmers, but not white farmers. Another provision offered billions in aid to minority-owned and women-owned restaurants, but told struggling restaurants owners who happened to be white men that they had to go to the back of the line.
The injustice was obvious. White male farmers and restaurant owners sued, claiming the anti-white provisions are unconstitutional. So far, these challengers are winning. In every case, federal judges have halted the race-based programs in the American Rescue Plan Act until the challengers have their day in court. Politico reported last week that Biden’s Justice Department may fold without a fight on the black-farmer debt relief cases, because the law isn’t on the administration’s side.
You would think Democrats and the Biden White House would get the message. Instead, they’re doubling down on rigging legislation and divvying up taxpayer dollars to benefit minorities and shortchange whites.
Chances are high the infrastructure bill’s hodgepodge of anti-white discrimination will be struck down by federal courts. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution bars government from trying to even the score by discriminating against whites and in favor of minorities. The justices warned against creating “a patchwork of racial preferences based on statistical generalizations” to correct past injustices. That’s precisely what this infrastructure bill does.
The bill’s backers would have you believe that obsolete airports, dilapidated public works and deteriorating roads and public spaces are evidence of racial injustice. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) rails that “our infrastructure is racist” and calls on the Congress to pass a bill that “puts the needs of underserved and disadvantaged communities at the fore.”
That’s code for minority communities. But the truth is, there are plenty of poor white people in this country, too, and poor, predominantly white communities that could benefit from a bold federal infrastructure initiative. Race and ethnicity should have nothing to do with it. Locate the projects and put the funds where the economic need is greatest, regardless of race.
West Virginia has the lowest average income in the nation and ranks 46th in internet connectivity. Maine ranks 36th out of 50 states for income, and 34th in broadband connectivity. People in these states could really benefit from federal broadband assistance. Here’s the hitch: The infrastructure bill tilts the grant scale in favor of states with high minority and non-English-speaking populations, instead of considering only economic need and existing broadband capacity. Because Maine and West Virginia are 94 percent white, they’ll get less.
Polls show that Americans favor fixing roads, bridges, tunnels and airports. They know that good infrastructure promotes economic growth. But they’ve been kept in the dark about the fine print in the bill. Under the guise of upgrading the nation, the bill unfairly treats whites like second-class citizens.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.
Biden’s infrastructure bill is chock-full of anti-white racism
Americans are enthusiastic about spending money on physical infrastructure — bridges, roads, broadband. But this racist bill hands out jobs and contracts and locates projects based on race, not mer…nypost.com
$1K? (and I have no idea what that botched abortion of a sentence means other than “O (sic) I’ll bet it gets rannsacked in court).
Go ahead. Try to attack any of the posts you included. I can defend any of them, despite that they stand on their own.
Unfortunately, yes. The section on Obligation Ceiling was riveting. So much in there about minority- and female-owned contractors getting bids over white male-owned contractors, I could hardly keep a count.
Let's set the parameters here. In order for you to win it needs to pass, it needs to go into existence, it then needs time for a minority to win a contract and then a follow up court hearing would need to be thrown out Correct? Because if any of that doesnt happen then it did in fact get ransacked and laughed away.
Page 36 of the document if you are reading on your phone it starts on page 42 of the pdf reader, I'll take the L for not addressing that appropriately. It's the section right above the transportation.
I personally would never give up control of a company I started, but that's me. I suppose in his mind, if it really doesn't work with her, he can start another corporation and take all of his clients with him.
I dont think there is a perfect answer but the best I can come up with is a check. It sounds stupid but it's likegiving someone money for Christmas, they can spend it on what they want. Anything like lower rates on loans will have adverse impact.
If my goal is to have my name on the door and tell people I'm a business owner then I keep my name on the door. If my goal is to maximize profits and win bids, my wife can have her name all over the company.
If my goal is to have my name on the door and tell people I'm a business owner then I keep my name on the door. If my goal is to maximize profits and win bids, my wife can have her name all over the company.
“A follow up court hearing would be thrown out” makes no sense. How do you throw out a hearing?
Oh my god. The document lists its page numbers, and you're mad at me for reading the actual page numbers of the document and giving you shit about it?
I'm not mad at you for shit, quit being s pisspants. I acknowledged where I had made a mistake. ****ing christ Rudy, quit being a bitch.
No no no. If it gets enacted and then fights thebattles the farm bill is fighting it will be ransacked. That's ****ing IF it gets there.
So why hasn't the "ransacking" happened yet given this has been in place for a long time?
No no no. If it gets enacted and then fights thebattles the farm bill is fighting it will be ransacked. That's ****ing IF it gets there.
I assume you are talking about the bill from the 80s that is discussed not this actual bill?
You are hitting the nail on the head sir. Not to mention the ugly truth that about 1/5th of the people that would think they were going to get shit would actually get something and the rest would be even further disadvantaged.
Back peddling and making sure all bases are covered when entering a bet with a lawyer are tel totally different things. The farm bill is getting its ass ransacked in court and so would this. Keep up riley.
If you find yourself in tacit agreement with 311, well maybe take a moment to reconsider.
