Reid-" priv.-sector jobs just fine, pub.-sector jobs, thats what this bill is about"

[peach174]

Since the beginning of the recession (roughly January 2008), some 7.9 million jobs were lost in the private sector while 590,000 jobs were gained in the public one. And since the passage of the stimulus bill (February 2009), over 2.6 million private jobs were lost, but the government workforce grew by 400,000.

Reid seems very out of touch.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know after reading this, I'm sort of reminded of something and it's perhaps me showing my age here. What happened to a Sen. that was supposed to represent those who elected him to the office? In Reids case it would be the people of the great state of Nv. It would seem to me that he would be better served if for a moment he would pause and take time to address the concerns of his home state for a change. With one of the highest forclosure rates in the country and a 13.2% unemployment rate and people fleeing Las Vegas as a result of the collapse of the housing and construction trades. It would seem to me the good Sen. would spend his time concentrating on legislation that would benefit the needs of those whom he was sent there to represent be it public sector or private sector. Perhaps thats an old fashioned way to look at things , but if you take ever Sen. doing the same thing for their respective states then you have a healthy nation and legislation that better reflects the needs of the nation as a whole the Sen. feelings on Public Sector jobs nothwithstanding.

We don't have many public servants going to Washington anymore. We have career politicians who, if they didn't plan on it in the first place, quickly learn that they can enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune by being politicians instead of public servants.

So I keep up the drum beat. Take away their congressional perks, health plan, retirement plan and let them fund those out of their salaries like most people have to do. Take away their ability to buy votes and increase their influence with the public treasury. Do that and we will again have citizen public servants representing the people.

Wonderful word that " PUBLIC SERVANT", thank you for pointing that out it's often forgotten these day's that those we elect and represent us from the President all the way down to the local School Board do indeed serve the public. Sadly, many go to Washington D.C. and after many years there seem to forget that basic thing and it does seem the good Sen. from Nv. is one of them. I have no issue with decent public servants "EARNING" a retirement from the work they do as legislators, however it does seem that when a congressman is full vested after 5 years and the average soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who puts themselves in harms way isn't theres something wrong there. In fact those same members of the military have to put in 20 years for the same benefits and in most if not all cases much much harder circumstances. So again, thank you for reminding us that they are indeed "public servants" and indebted to us all and not the other way around.

The military is a very different animal than Congress and certainly those who devote their life's work to service in the military deserve to have a retirement package and I don't begrudge them that in the least.

The Founders, however, never intended elected office in Congress to be a career position. And we should not see it that way either. Those who wish to be there as public servants and who do their jobs responsibly will certainly be re-elected on merit. But by removing a tax payer funded retirement program, and the ability to enrich oneself at the taxpayer's expense, we encourage citizen legislators who do that to be public servants instead of the career politicians who are in it mostly for themselves. If you make it impossible or difficult to use the public treasury to buy votes, you will get much better people in Congress.

I say pay them more when they are there--it is expensive to maintain a household in Washington DC as well as one back home--but let them buy their own healthcare plans and fund their own retirement plans so that when their term of office is over they are off the taxpayer's dime. And when they go home they will live under the same laws they passed.

 

[Navy1960]

We don't have many public servants going to Washington anymore. We have career politicians who, if they didn't plan on it in the first place, quickly learn that they can enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune by being politicians instead of public servants.

So I keep up the drum beat. Take away their congressional perks, health plan, retirement plan and let them fund those out of their salaries like most people have to do. Take away their ability to buy votes and increase their influence with the public treasury. Do that and we will again have citizen public servants representing the people.

Wonderful word that " PUBLIC SERVANT", thank you for pointing that out it's often forgotten these day's that those we elect and represent us from the President all the way down to the local School Board do indeed serve the public. Sadly, many go to Washington D.C. and after many years there seem to forget that basic thing and it does seem the good Sen. from Nv. is one of them. I have no issue with decent public servants "EARNING" a retirement from the work they do as legislators, however it does seem that when a congressman is full vested after 5 years and the average soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who puts themselves in harms way isn't theres something wrong there. In fact those same members of the military have to put in 20 years for the same benefits and in most if not all cases much much harder circumstances. So again, thank you for reminding us that they are indeed "public servants" and indebted to us all and not the other way around.

The military is a very different animal than Congress and certainly those who devote their life's work to service in the military deserve to have a retirement package and I don't begrudge them that in the least.

The Founders, however, never intended elected office in Congress to be a career position. And we should not see it that way either. Those who wish to be there as public servants and who do their jobs responsibly will certainly be re-elected on merit. But by removing a tax payer funded retirement program, and the ability to enrich oneself at the taxpayer's expense, we encourage citizen legislators who do that to be public servants instead of the career politicians who are in it mostly for themselves. If you make it impossible or difficult to use the public treasury to buy votes, you will get much better people in Congress.

I say pay them more when they are there--it is expensive to maintain a household in Washington DC as well as one back home--but let them buy their own healthcare plans and fund their own retirement plans so that when their term of office is over they are off the taxpayer's dime. And when they go home they will live under the same laws they passed.

I don't have an issue with someone who wants to make congress their lifes work. However, if that person makes the choice to represent others and pass laws that they must live under, including one's that determine their long term financial health. Then they themselves must live under those same laws. I would venture to guess that most of the American working public's retirement is based on a 401K system these days and if that is the case, then congress should reflect that as well. It also seems to me that if you choose to represent Americans and you have no clue what its like to stand in line at a Pharmacy then perhaps your out of touch. So I agree with you on the aspect of reforming the compensation of those in congress, however, for my part anyone who wishes to do the public good and make that a career, I have no issue with at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wonderful word that " PUBLIC SERVANT", thank you for pointing that out it's often forgotten these day's that those we elect and represent us from the President all the way down to the local School Board do indeed serve the public. Sadly, many go to Washington D.C. and after many years there seem to forget that basic thing and it does seem the good Sen. from Nv. is one of them. I have no issue with decent public servants "EARNING" a retirement from the work they do as legislators, however it does seem that when a congressman is full vested after 5 years and the average soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who puts themselves in harms way isn't theres something wrong there. In fact those same members of the military have to put in 20 years for the same benefits and in most if not all cases much much harder circumstances. So again, thank you for reminding us that they are indeed "public servants" and indebted to us all and not the other way around.

The military is a very different animal than Congress and certainly those who devote their life's work to service in the military deserve to have a retirement package and I don't begrudge them that in the least.

The Founders, however, never intended elected office in Congress to be a career position. And we should not see it that way either. Those who wish to be there as public servants and who do their jobs responsibly will certainly be re-elected on merit. But by removing a tax payer funded retirement program, and the ability to enrich oneself at the taxpayer's expense, we encourage citizen legislators who do that to be public servants instead of the career politicians who are in it mostly for themselves. If you make it impossible or difficult to use the public treasury to buy votes, you will get much better people in Congress.

I say pay them more when they are there--it is expensive to maintain a household in Washington DC as well as one back home--but let them buy their own healthcare plans and fund their own retirement plans so that when their term of office is over they are off the taxpayer's dime. And when they go home they will live under the same laws they passed.

I don't have an issue with someone who wants to make congress their lifes work. However, if that person makes the choice to represent others and pass laws that they must live under, including one's that determine their long term financial health. Then they themselves must live under those same laws. I would venture to guess that most of the American working public's retirement is based on a 401K system these days and if that is the case, then congress should reflect that as well. It also seems to me that if you choose to represent Americans and you have no clue what its like to stand in line at a Pharmacy then perhaps your out of touch. So I agree with you on the aspect of reforming the compensation of those in congress, however, for my part anyone who wishes to do the public good and make that a career, I have no issue with at all.

I have no issue with making it a career either so long as they cannot use the system at taxpayer expense to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes. The way it is structured now, in a very few years in office, politicians can secure their futures by dispensing the people's money as benevolence to certain entities and, by targeting voter groups for benevolence can ensure that they continue in their positions. Re-election does not depend on competence or effectiveness in their jobs as public servants but rather on how many people they can bribe, fool, coerce, or manipulate with the public treasury. That is wrong and should not be tolerated any further.

Also if they fund their own 401Ks, they won't be creating a multi-million dollar entitlement for themselves as is the case now. That is also wrong and should not be tolerated any further.

People should be in Congress because they love the responsibility and doing the job and not because they can enrich or empower themselves beyond their wildest dreams.

 

[kwc57]

I wonder how many public sector jobs we could do without and not feel any national consequence?

Ron Paul was being interviewed this morning and asked about all the government agencies he would fight to just shut down and close up and what would happen to the 300,000 federal employees that would then be out of work.

He responded that you don't do it all at once but just don't replace those who quit, retire, get fired, or whatever until you can start consolidating and closing down unnecessary or anti-constitutional government agencies.

Meanwhile, you put the country back on a solid economic track so that the private sector is creating good jobs for everybody who wants one. And he mentioned that after WWII, we had five million guys coming home and needing to go back to work, but the economy was booming and they were effortlessly reassimilated into the private work force.

I am not all that much a Ron Paul fan, but what he is saying makes a lot of sense.

Every public sector job requires money from the economy that would pay for a private sector job.

That is something Harry Reid and his ilk simply don't seem to understand and/or care about.

But FF......is that "fair"?

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how many public sector jobs we could do without and not feel any national consequence?

Ron Paul was being interviewed this morning and asked about all the government agencies he would fight to just shut down and close up and what would happen to the 300,000 federal employees that would then be out of work.

He responded that you don't do it all at once but just don't replace those who quit, retire, get fired, or whatever until you can start consolidating and closing down unnecessary or anti-constitutional government agencies.

Meanwhile, you put the country back on a solid economic track so that the private sector is creating good jobs for everybody who wants one. And he mentioned that after WWII, we had five million guys coming home and needing to go back to work, but the economy was booming and they were effortlessly reassimilated into the private work force.

I am not all that much a Ron Paul fan, but what he is saying makes a lot of sense.

Every public sector job requires money from the economy that would pay for a private sector job.

That is something Harry Reid and his ilk simply don't seem to understand and/or care about.

But FF......is that "fair"?

I'm sure those who think they are entitled to what I earn won't think it's fair.

 

[frazzledgear]

I had to paraphrase, he said-

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about," Reid said on the Senate floor.


Well, I give him high marks for honesty ( in just this case) and zero points for intellect and economic sense. But hey, we sorta knew that.

Notice this is their first hack at the Obama Jobs plan, so yea, its clear who they value alright. This statement too, explains deftly one of the root causes for many municipalities/states poor financial conditions and of course, the parties economically bankrupt yet philosophically ingrained 1st commandment.



Reid signals government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs
By Pete Kasperowicz - 10/19/11 10:16 AM ET

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.
More at-

Reid signals government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs - The Hill's Floor Action

yea he signaled alright....

His comment should make anyone with half a brain sit up and realize what the hell is going on with Democrats! He gets no marks for honesty because by now I have no doubt he realizes what major gaffe this was and what a gift he handed the future Republican nominee for President.

Unemployment in public sector jobs is less than 5%.

Unemployment in the private sector -among those who actually pay for the salaries and benefits of public sector workers - is 9.2%! How is that in line with his claims that private sector jobs are just fine? What the hell is this man REALLY saying? How could he keep a straight face and say such a monumentally STUPID thing since it not just dead wrong -it is something he KNEW was a complete LIE!

He is announcing the real concern for Democrats is buying votes -public sector jobs are 40% union jobs (compared to 6.9% it is in the private sector). And public and private unions vote Democrat -for a reason. What he is being honest about is the CORRUPT MUTUALLY MASTURBATORY RELATIONSHIP between public sector unions and Democrats -not the facts regarding unemployment. But I doubt he wanted taxpayers to dwell on that so no marks for "honesty" when it is more likely something he quickly realized was a political gaffe.

Unions -both public and private -are in reality money laundering operations for Democrats. Who really benefited the most from the stimulus bill? Unions -both private and public sector ones. Who got stuck with the tab for it? Taxpayers. Who will get the bulk of campaign donations from the unions? Democrats -who will then turn around and pass legislation to pay them back with more money that will benefit largely just them. Always with taxpayers footing the bill for this corrupt relationship. Its bad enough when government puts taxpayers on the hook for their corrupt relationship with private sector unions -but with public sector unions ONLY taxpayers are footing ALL the bills at ALL times in that filthy, totally corrupt equation.

Taxpayers pay public union members' salaries and generous benefits that outstrip what the average taxpayer will get. (It should be less beneficial to be employed by government than in the private sector doing the comparable job -that only makes sense since it is private sector workers who pay the salaries and benefits of those in government and pulling more productive citizens out of the private sector only increases the burden on the remaining private sector workers.) In most states it is government that collects the public sector union dues and funnels it straight back to the unions -and since taxpayers pay 100% of public union members salaries, it is taxpayer funds being sent directly to public unions by our government. Union members -both public and private -should have to pay it directly themselves to the union, out of their OWN account, with their OWN check. Government should NEVER be in the business of collecting and funneling union dues to ANY union!

Among public sector unions, the money being used for the financial gain of Democrats and public unions is at all times TAXPAYER MONEY and it is a mutually masturbatory relationship between Democrats and public sector unions -with taxpayers at ALL times on the hook for the tab.

Reid is being honest about the depth of corruption that IS the Democrat party. I suspect he will quickly realize what a real gaffe it was for this to come out of his mouth. I can already see whoever ends up with the nomination using this as the starting point in any campaign ad against Obama. And rightfully so. Obama has been upfront about his efforts to nurture the corrupt and filthy relationship between public unions and Democrats -and Reid merely confirms what has always been obvious anyway.

Public unions should be abolished entirely and at a minimum forbidden from EVER being able to strike on ANY level of government. Government doesn't belong to those who work in it -it belongs to WE THE PEOPLE. When they go on strike it isn't against some jet flying billionaire, but WE THE PEOPLE who foot all the bills for OUR government. When they go on strike they are holding OUR government hostage as if it belongs to THEM! It is taxpayers who are footing the bills for their salaries and generous benefits not available to the average private sector worker -as well as paying all the money that public unions may pay their members when they are on strike! So taxpayers foot the bill for their salaries as well as the money used to support them when they are on strike or used to support and bus them to some demonstration! At all times it is taxpayers getting fucked over! Working IN government should NEVER NEVER pay better than working the comparable job in the private sector does!

Democrats claim to represent the best interests of public sector unions -and they are ABSOLUTELY correct. They do. Which means they do not and cannot be the best representatives for everyone else because that is a MAJOR conflict of interest. They cannot have the best interests of public unions first at the same time they have the best interests of those who PAY THEIR SALARIES AND BENEFITS -which is the rest of us. Impossible. We elect politicians to office -NOT union negotiators! But it is politicians who stick us with the tab for the SHITTY job they do when they -especially Democrats who openly admit they are on the side of public unions and NOT those who pay their salaries and benefits - have set up an ABOMINABLE situation where those who get hired by government (but can't be fired for incompetence) actually make more in wages and benefits combined than the average private sector worker who foots the bills for it!

At some point I really wish someone would ask Democrats why they helped create a system where during budget crunches the first to lose their jobs are those who provide vital or necessary services -instead of a bunch of government pencil pushers. Why is it no one is demanding to know why when the money runs out it is police and firefighters etc. to lose their jobs instead of non-vital pencil pushers which are the BULK of all government employees? It is like facing a lack of money in your own home and deciding you will turn off the heat so you can keep your entertainment budget intact.

Does anyone else not realize why it is those who provide vital services lose their jobs first? There is a reason that it is those government employees who are PUBLIC UNION members put on the chopping block first. But that wasn't true until they did become unionized and organized. No secret about how this is an intricate part of the FILTHY, CORRUPT relationship between public unions and Democrats. Democrats all over the country in nearly every state have gotten passed legislation that requires these are the first people to lose their jobs. Do you know why? Once they became unionized, they became the political tools of Democrats where the unions could be counted on to get their members out on strike when needed, out to public demonstrate when needed. It is also so when people start squealing about losing teachers, cops and firefighters Democrats can more easily respond by saying "you don't want to have fewer teachers, cops and firefighters? Then the only other option is to RAISE YOUR TAXES." That is the PHONY choice they helped create. That during tough times it is either lose vital services and necessary services -or have government take more of your money. It is NEVER an option to shrink the size of government by letting go of the pencil pushers though. Its all a shell game when it comes to Democrats and the point of their shell game is to fuck over taxpayers every step of the way.

 

[chikenwing]

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about,"

In a common sense world ,this should be his political end,but it won't be. Can't think of any reason why a career congress person would be ok. 2 terms in each branch is long enough for anyone, do a good job you could serve 24 years. Term limits are not for protection from politicians,but ourselves.Balanced budget amendment is our protection from them.