What is the private sector?

[Gadawg73]

so, billions funded by the tax payer, for those private sector jobs is not jobs created by our gvt?

The Constitution calls for a military and the taxpayers demand that be upheld.
Demand creates jobs.
Government is the people. People, not government, demand.

 

[freedombecki]

The private sector is an organism which gets subsidies and bailouts and FDIC insurance and patents and legal infrastructure and physical infrastructure and military protection of overseas supply chains & trade routes and massive no-bid weapons contracts and sweetheart no-bid drug deals through medicare spending and skilled workers educated at world class public universities ...

but denies their utter dependence on Big Government . . .

while, at the same time, setting up a trillion dollar lobbying industry so that it can parasitically suck at the taxpayer's teat . . .

while investing billions into think tanks/radio/TV/internet for the purpose of convincing useful idiots that they actually hate government interference.

Folks, the private sector craves big government. The only people who don't see this are Republicans who get 100% of their information from the same corporate interests who own government.

If Government didn't exist, the private sector would invent it in order to get subsidies, bailouts, and protection.

The current party government here is saying to people who own private industry to give their Democrat Unions control over Boeing or else they are threatening to shut them down one way or another.

At Behest of Unions, Government orders Boeing to close South Carolina plant

 

[Gadawg73]

The federal government spends over half trillion dollars a year on private sector goods and services. If you eliminate the entitlements, then almost 1 in every 10 dollars spent by the federal government goes directly to the private sector. Whether we like it or not, government spending on goods and services is a huge part of our economy.

Total federal government spending is almost 40% of our GDP. Factor in state and local government and we approaching almost half of the total economic output of the country originating from government spending. Whether this spending enters the economy through direct purchase of goods and services or indirectly through entitlements or other spending, any reduction in this spending will result in a decrease in economic growth as measured by the GDP because it is a component of GDP. Conservatives will claim that reduction in government spending will lead to more productive growth via the private sector. There is no evidence that this will occur but it is a mathematical certainty the a reduction in government spending will reduce growth.

Most of that government spending is not to buy a damn thing.
It is a check sent to someone with their name on it.
That is a bad thing. Government never produces a damn thing. Government does not have to make a profit. Government administration of each dollar they spend is three times what the private sector spends to spend the same $$.
Less government spending leaves more $$$ in the private sector.
Tell us how more $$ for consumers to spend is a bad thing.

 

[Flopper]

The federal government spends over half trillion dollars a year on private sector goods and services. If you eliminate the entitlements, then almost 1 in every 10 dollars spent by the federal government goes directly to the private sector. Whether we like it or not, government spending on goods and services is a huge part of our economy.

Total federal government spending is almost 40% of our GDP. Factor in state and local government and we approaching almost half of the total economic output of the country originating from government spending. Whether this spending enters the economy through direct purchase of goods and services or indirectly through entitlements or other spending, any reduction in this spending will result in a decrease in economic growth as measured by the GDP because it is a component of GDP. Conservatives will claim that reduction in government spending will lead to more productive growth via the private sector. There is no evidence that this will occur but it is a mathematical certainty the a reduction in government spending will reduce growth.

The thing that you are forgetting, however, is that every dollar spent by the private sector is a dollar added to the economy. Every dollar spent by the government has to be taken out of the economy before it is available to spend.

Unfortunately, that's not so. You forget we live in a world of deficit government financing. Government can borrow a dollar and spend it without taking anything out of private sector, at least not today. Of course the Piper has to be paid but those are future dollars. Reducing government spending by a dollar doesn't necessarily put a dollar back into the private sector. Unless Congress lowers taxes, that dollar reduces government borrowing.

I'm not saying deficit spending is a good thing but it's a fact of life. Economist tells us deficit spending is a tool to be used sparingly. Unfortunately, it's become a crutch.

 

[Flopper]

The federal government spends over half trillion dollars a year on private sector goods and services. If you eliminate the entitlements, then almost 1 in every 10 dollars spent by the federal government goes directly to the private sector. Whether we like it or not, government spending on goods and services is a huge part of our economy.

Total federal government spending is almost 40% of our GDP. Factor in state and local government and we approaching almost half of the total economic output of the country originating from government spending. Whether this spending enters the economy through direct purchase of goods and services or indirectly through entitlements or other spending, any reduction in this spending will result in a decrease in economic growth as measured by the GDP because it is a component of GDP. Conservatives will claim that reduction in government spending will lead to more productive growth via the private sector. There is no evidence that this will occur but it is a mathematical certainty the a reduction in government spending will reduce growth.

Most of that government spending is not to buy a damn thing.
It is a check sent to someone with their name on it.
That is a bad thing. Government never produces a damn thing. Government does not have to make a profit. Government administration of each dollar they spend is three times what the private sector spends to spend the same $$.
Less government spending leaves more $$$ in the private sector.
Tell us how more $$ for consumers to spend is a bad thing.

Less government spending can leaves more $$$ in the private sector, but that's not a given. Unless taxes are lowered the money saved from spending cuts will just reduce the deficit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Hard to think of anything that is strictly "private sector"

Anyone who relies on the transportation of any good whatsoever over roads and highways relies partially on government.

Anyone who relies on technology that relies on public funded science - like quantum mechanics - relies on government.


I could go on.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Yeah they are still on the hook. Its just in the form of food stamps and other government aid and the reduction in tax revenue that results from retirees with lower incomes. Just because private companies provide less retirement benefits doesn't mean their employees won't need to eat when they are too old to work.

 

[bripat9643]

so, billions funded by the tax payer, for those private sector jobs is not jobs created by our gvt?

The Constitution calls for a military and the taxpayers demand that be upheld.
Demand creates jobs.
Government is the people. People, not government, demand.

Government is not the people. That notion is idiotic. Government is a criminal gang separate from the people.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately, that's not so. You forget we live in a world of deficit government financing. Government can borrow a dollar and spend it without taking anything out of private sector, at least not today.

ROFL! You've got to be kidding! What you don't seem to understand is that the only thing that matters is the goods and services the government consumes. The scraps of paper that get shuffled around to keep account of it are irrelevant. The fact is that if the government purchases an automobile or a box of envelopes, those products are not available to the private companies or individuals.

Of course the Piper has to be paid but those are future dollars. Reducing government spending by a dollar doesn't necessarily put a dollar back into the private sector. Unless Congress lowers taxes, that dollar reduces government borrowing.

Wrong again, as I explained above.

I'm not saying deficit spending is a good thing but it's a fact of life. Economist tells us deficit spending is a tool to be used sparingly. Unfortunately, it's become a crutch.

It's not a fact of life.

 

[bripat9643]

Hard to think of anything that is strictly "private sector"

Anyone who relies on the transportation of any good whatsoever over roads and highways relies partially on government.

Anyone who relies on technology that relies on public funded science - like quantum mechanics - relies on government.


I could go on.

That's only true because government has intruded itself into everything. The private sector got along quite nicely before all this government assistance.

 

[bripat9643]

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Yeah they are still on the hook. Its just in the form of food stamps and other government aid and the reduction in tax revenue that results from retirees with lower incomes. Just because private companies provide less retirement benefits doesn't mean their employees won't need to eat when they are too old to work.

The taxpayers are on the hook only because turds like you put them on the hook.

 

[editec]

My impression is that about half the people posting here WERE NEARLY ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE TAXPAYERS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO FILL THEIR GOVERNMENT ISSUED RICEBOWLS.

Seems like about half of us here had military careers, so they were obviously sucking on the government teat.

A lot of those retired lifers apparently then get jobs working either directly for the military (working on bases and whatnot) or working for corporations whose primary client is the US militarym so they're still sucking off the government teat one breast removed, but still the money is coming directly from taxpayers,

What I find most ironic about this group of partiots is that these are the folks who lecture US, we who were not dependent on the government for a pay check our entire lifes, about the wonderfulness of free market capitalism... a world that they have NEVER actually depended on to feed themselves or their families.

Talk about hypocracy?

 

[Gadawg73]

so, billions funded by the tax payer, for those private sector jobs is not jobs created by our gvt?

The Constitution calls for a military and the taxpayers demand that be upheld.
Demand creates jobs.
Government is the people. People, not government, demand.

Government is not the people. That notion is idiotic. Government is a criminal gang separate from the people.

People elect government. Government are people.
Not aleins from outer space.
Blame yourself for the government you get.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution calls for a military and the taxpayers demand that be upheld.
Demand creates jobs.
Government is the people. People, not government, demand.

Government is not the people. That notion is idiotic. Government is a criminal gang separate from the people.

People elect government. Government are people.
Not aleins from outer space.
Blame yourself for the government you get.

People in government may be people, but they aren't "the people."

Why should I blame myself? I didn't vote for any of the turds that currently hold office. However, I do blame you.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is not the people. That notion is idiotic. Government is a criminal gang separate from the people.

People elect government. Government are people.
Not aleins from outer space.
Blame yourself for the government you get.

People in government may be people, but they aren't "the people."

Why should I blame myself? I didn't vote for any of the turds that currently hold office. However, I do blame you.

The US has the best government in the world.

 

[blastoff]

Private sector companies would be those either privately or stockholder owned. No direct attachment to the government as, say, jobs where one works directly for NASA, the FBI, the FAA, FTC, etc., etc., etc. If the company, business, or service is funded by the federal budget it's not a private sector operation.

 

[Gadawg73]

Government is not the people. That notion is idiotic. Government is a criminal gang separate from the people.

People elect government. Government are people.
Not aleins from outer space.
Blame yourself for the government you get.

People in government may be people, but they aren't "the people."

Why should I blame myself? I didn't vote for any of the turds that currently hold office. However, I do blame you.

Blame is all you have. Get off your ass like I do and change things.
You didn't vote for anyone in any office in your state, your county, your city, your Senator or Congressman?
If you didn't then you can vote with your feet. I did. I moved to a primarily Republican District and county.
Excuses are lame.

 

[Navy1960]

Any company that is that is totally dependent on government for its income is not really private sector. For instance there are privately owned companies that do maintenance at Kirtland AFB here in Albuquerque and that is ALL they do. They were created to work exclusively for the government. Such companies in my opinion are not private sector because if their government contract is cancelled, they are essentially out of business.

The advantage of using such companies, however, is that these are not civil service jobs and the tax payer is not on the hook to provide retirement and health benefits to the employees once the contract ends though the taxpayer can still be on the hook for unemployment insurance until the laid off workers find other employment.

Contrast that with numerous other companies in New Mexico who bid on and receive government contracts at the labs, bases, and other federal installations, but that is only a portion of their work. Losing their government contract is painful, yes, but they have other work to do and would remain in business anyway. Such companies I consider private sector.

While I respect your opinion as I do all those, I would tend to disagree, because if those companies that have contracted with the Federal Govt. were to lose those contracts, those employee's are subject to the employers benefits not that Federal Govts. no less than any other "private sector" company.?

I don't think I said anything different. The taxpayer is on the hook for benefits and health coverage for vested civil service employees who leave their jobs or retire from a government job. I made a specific point to say that they are not on the hook for the same benefits for employees of the subcontractor even if the subcontractor works exclusively for the government.

The other thing that comes to mind here too, is that these companies are providing a service that they have been contracted to do no matter what that may be. In the case of those companies that depend on contracts completely , then they would cease to exist. Is this not the market sorting things out

How is what you are saying here in any way different from what I said? My point is, however, that the taxpayer will pay ALL the subcontractors costs for doing business for the govenment if that subcontractor works exclusively for the government. And that is what makes it just another government group though structured a bit differently than civil service jobs and much easier to terminate than are civil service jobs. If the government did not offer the contract, the business would not have existed in the first place. If the government terminates or does not renew the contract, the business ceases to exist.

Again, the business that contracts with government for some of its work but that does not need the government in order to exist is a private sector job. The government is not paying for the infrastructure, equipment, etc. except for whatever the employer needs to include in the contract to cover his expenses for wear and tear etc. And if there is no government work, the employer continues in business in the private sector.

What I tend to think here Fox, is that when those companies that exist just as means to fill Federal contracts ( Military, etc.), that does not seperate them from the "private sector" in that the benefits paid to it's employee's are done so by the company that is fulfilling the contract not by the taxpayer. One other thing to consider here too is that these companies may start out as Federal contractors, and then as means of increasing profits also market to the private sector. I can think of no better example of this than Space X, which was started by the founder of PayPal to fill the gap for the manned spaced flight program and now is selling lauch services to other nations as well as private companies. Lastly, when the contracts for these companies expire or run out, and if they do not win new one's they cease to exist or go on to new ventures, the company and its employee's for the most part are not supported through the taxpayers. I do see your point however.

 

[bripat9643]

People elect government. Government are people.
Not aleins from outer space.
Blame yourself for the government you get.

People in government may be people, but they aren't "the people."

Why should I blame myself? I didn't vote for any of the turds that currently hold office. However, I do blame you.

Blame is all you have. Get off your ass like I do and change things.
You didn't vote for anyone in any office in your state, your county, your city, your Senator or Congressman?
If you didn't then you can vote with your feet. I did. I moved to a primarily Republican District and county.
Excuses are lame.

I plan on moving to Florida soon for precisely that reason. However, once I get there, I still haven't voted for any of the thieves that infest the local government. No state in this union has representation in Congress that I would vote for.

You're naive if you think you can reform our government by "participating" in the process. You don't reform organized crime by participating in organized crime.

That being said, nothing you posted contradicts what I posted.

 

[Navy1960]

If the Federal Govt. provides funding for programs that private companies in turn have to employ others to meet the need, are these not "private sector jobs"? The question I have here is, take NASA for example, there is a big competetion between Space X and Boeing going on at the moment for who will build the next manned space vehicle. So far this has resulted in over 1500 private sector jobs with estimates at or around 4 to 5000 for years to come. Or, for example a program like the Air Force Tanker program which will build the next generation Air Force Tanker and is according to the RFP to employ around 10 to 15000 people, all in the private sector. As none of these individuals work for the Govt. nor is the man who pours concrete for that highway, or makes steel for that high speed rail, is this not a " private sector job". Help me to understand the difference, surely those who advocate for "private sector" are not saying that these jobs at Boeing, Space X, and thousands of other companies are not "private sector".

Hard to think of anything that is strictly "private sector"

Anyone who relies on the transportation of any good whatsoever over roads and highways relies partially on government.

Anyone who relies on technology that relies on public funded science - like quantum mechanics - relies on government.


I could go on.

Here's my point Ooh, and it's actually quite simple, when one advocates for letting the "private sector" be the engine that creates jobs in our economy and at the same time say's such things as the Govt. cannot create jobs and the two are somehow seperate , I would disagree with that especially when it comes to such things as Govt. contracting and the small example I used. No one would argue that the Founder of PayPal as well as the Founder of Amazon would be considered "private sector" and yet here they are both in competetion for NASA's new rocket. So it would seem to me that solutions are not always "my way or the highway" as some political figures would have you think.

As for being on the hook, I would suggest that a person who works for a "private contractor" is vested in its system and it's retirement system and while working the taxes they paid while working would suggest othrewise when it comes to unemployment. My point here is these individuals are not vested for the most part in a Federal retirement and healthcare system and I am sure those on Medicaid would argue there's a big difference between the healthcare a retired Federal employee gets and they do.