Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: The Private Sector is Doing Fine!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Private Sector is Doing Fine!

    [IMG]http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ChangeInEmployment0108to0512.png[/IMG]

    Really now, how can anyone say that the area which is responsible for well over 90% of the 5,000,000-job shortfall and where part-timers are rapidly supplanting full-time employees is “doing fine”? I’ll tell you how: We have a president who has never managed anything bigger than a Senate office budget in his entire life, has no clue as to what’s going on outside of his Beltway/”Chicago way” bubble, and has only fever swamp-driven higher education, community organizing, legal system, and political backgrounds as points of reference. He isn’t merely out of touch; he’s out of reach.

    If he wants state and local governments to preserve their jobs or at least to minimize layoffs, Obama should be giving them six words of advice: Do what Scott Walker has done. But he won’t do that. As the Wall Street Journal said in its marvelous editorial following Obama’s expressed ignorance which is miles beyond the level of a mere gaffe, “Governments are having to lay off workers to pay for their rising pension and health bills.” States which have faced up to those twin problems, like Governor Walker’s Wisconsin, have averted thousands of layoffs while preserving services. States like Ohio — which tried something similar but saw their efforts subverted by the left/organized labor axis — have seen thousands of layoffs. Union bosses would rather see younger members thrown out on the streets than give up even the smallest portion of their oversized, outdated, and unsustainable wages and benefits.

    There is potential good news in all of this. Obama, in continuing his tired push for more stimulus to state and local governments which won’t reform themselves while making life miserable for a private sector which he still insists is “doing fine,” appears to be sowing the seeds of his own November defeat to a degree where the non-stop establishment press excuse-making and cover-ups still might not be able to prevent it.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quick, who has a better record in regard with private sector jobs...Bush or Obama?

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    The private sector got bailed the F8CK out.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4489355]The private sector got bailed the F8CK out.[/QUOTE]

    The private sector pays 100% of the salaries, benefits and pensions of every last public sector employee.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4489411]The private sector pays 100% of the salaries, benefits and pensions of every last public sector employee.[/QUOTE]

    The private sector uses the public sector services everyday.

  6. #6
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,729
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4489416]The private sector uses the public sector services everyday.[/QUOTE]

    And we overpay tremendously.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,349
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4489419]And we overpay tremendously.[/QUOTE]

    Yep you're a victim. :zzz:

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    [IMG]http://static.thepeoplescube.com/images/Medal_Order_of_Obama_160.gif[/IMG]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=241jxCN1AfQ&feature=player_embedded[/url]
    Last edited by Frequent Flyer; 06-12-2012 at 02:16 AM.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,036
    Post Thanks / Like
    Details!!!


    [URL]http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/11/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-teachers-fir[/URL]

    [B]Reason.com[/B]

    [B][URL="http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/11/what-obama-gets-wrong-about-teachers-fir"]What Obama Gets Wrong About Teachers, Firefighters, and Cops[/URL][/B]

    [QUOTE](Pretty much everything.) [URL="http://reason.com/people/ira-stoll/all"]Ira Stoll[/URL] | June 11, 2012


    President Obama’s latest campaign talking point on the economy is that the Republicans in Congress are responsible for laying off teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

    The “private sector is doing fine” line was the one that got all the attention on Friday in the president’s [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/08/remarks-president"]remarks[/URL] to the press, but Mr. Obama’s other message was just as newsworthy: “the private sector has been hiring at a solid pace over the last 27 months. But one of the biggest weaknesses has been state and local governments, which have laid off 450,000 Americans. These are teachers and cops and firefighters. Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring.”

    Mr. Obama followed up over the weekend in his [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/09/weekly-address-congress-must-act-keep-our-teachers-job"]weekly address[/URL]: “it should concern everyone that right now—all across America—tens of thousands of teachers are getting laid off. In Pennsylvania alone, there are 9,000 fewer educators in our schools today than just a year ago. In Ohio, the number is close to 7,000. And nationwide, over the past three years, school districts have lost over 250,000 educators....I hope you’ll join me in telling Congress to do the right thing; to get to work and to help get our teachers back in the classroom.”

    [B]This message is so misguided, and at the same time so characteristic of Mr. Obama’s overall approach, that it is worth taking it apart in greater detail in five ways as an illuminating example.[/B]

    [B][I]The focus on inputs rather than outputs[/I].[/B] President Obama is concentrating on how many teachers, police, and firefighters there are. What matters more to me is whether the students in schools are learning, what the crime rate is, and how many fire-related fatalities there are. If standardized reading and math scores are increasing, homicide statistics are decreasing, and fire-related losses are diminishing even with fewer teachers, police officers, and firefighters, that could be a good thing, because it saves taxpayers money. In the private sector, increased productivity—doing the same amount of work with lower labor costs, or getting more work out of the same number of person-hours —is a goal, often achieved through technology or innovation. To President Obama, it seems like a threat.

    [B][I]The stasis[/I].[/B] For a guy who ran on a promise of “change,” Mr. Obama sure seems alarmed by minor fluctuations in teacher headcount. The president talked about the decline in teacher employment in Pennsylvania, though he did not say how much of it was owing to retirements and attrition and how much was attributable to layoffs. He also didn’t mention that the number of [I]students[/I] in Pennsylvania has also declined—to 1,765,327 in October 2011 from 1,801,760 in October 2007, according to the [URL="http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/enrollment/7407/public_school_enrollment_reports/620541"]Pennsylvania Department of Education[/URL]. The same is true in the other state Mr. Obama mentioned, Ohio, where the student headcount [URL="http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=390&ContentID=12261&Content=126274"]dropped[/URL] to 1,832,832 in October 2010 from 1,892,490 in October 2004. Private businesses add and shed employees all the time in response to how many customers there are. Why shouldn’t governments make the same adjustment?

    [B][I]The obliteration of distinctions between federal and local responsibilities[/I].[/B] The best people to decide how many police or teachers or firefighters are needed are the people within the jurisdiction being policed, or protected from fire. Some places may prefer lower taxes and a volunteer fire department. Other places may prefer higher taxes and a fancier high school. [I][B]The framers of the Constitution realized this when they created a national government with limited and enumerated powers and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text"]left[/URL] the rest of the powers to the states.[/B][/I]

    [B][I]The redistribution[/I].[/B] There’s a certain amount of redistribution that goes along with most government functions, and it can sometimes be unjust. Residents who do not have children, or who chose to send their children to private schools, are taxed to support the public schools. Non-smoking residents who live in brick houses with working smoke-detectors and sprinkler systems are taxed to support firefighters to rescue neighbors who smoke in bed in their straw houses and who have let the batteries in their smoke detectors go dead. But people can make choices about where to live based on their preferences. [I][B]Injecting the federal government into these local government payroll choices means that even the childless couple who deliberately moved into a low-tax district with leanly staffed schools is stuck having their [I]federal[/I] tax dollars pay for the teachers in the overstaffed district next door.[/B][/I]

    [B][I]The vote buying[/I].[/B] Mr. Obama can’t fairly be blamed for being political. He is, after all, a politician. But [I][B]I can’t recall ever encountering another politician who so sanctimoniously preens about being above politics while so crassly engaging in vote-buying with taxpayer money[/B][/I]. Pennsylvania and Ohio, after all, are swing states in the presidential election, and Mr. Obama’s effort to bolster state and local public-sector payrolls there with federal taxpayer dollars would expand and enrich government-employee unions that are reliable Democratic allies. Yet Mr. Obama’s weekly address concludes, “I know this is an election year. But some things are bigger than an election. Some things are bigger than politics....We can’t afford to wait any longer.”

    There are a lot of listeners who may agree about the “can’t afford to wait any longer” part — not about re-hiring the laid-off public employees in Ohio and Pennsylvania, but about allowing a certain Washington-D.C.-based government employee to join them in the ranks of the newly unemployed come January 2013.

    [I]Ira Stoll is editor of [URL="http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/"]FutureOfCapitalism.com[/URL] and author of [URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743299124/reasonmagazineA/"]Samuel Adams: A Life[/URL].[/I]
    [/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,733
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4489422]Yep you're a victim. :zzz:[/QUOTE]

    The country is a victim. The country pays their salaries and benefits. The unions pay very little into their benefits so who gets the shaft?

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,155
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4489099][IMG]http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ChangeInEmployment0108to0512.png[/IMG]

    Really now, how can anyone say that the area which is responsible for well over 90% of the 5,000,000-job shortfall and where part-timers are rapidly supplanting full-time employees is “doing fine”? I’ll tell you how: We have a president who has never managed anything bigger than a Senate office budget in his entire life, has no clue as to what’s going on outside of his Beltway/”Chicago way” bubble, and has only fever swamp-driven higher education, community organizing, legal system, and political backgrounds as points of reference. He isn’t merely out of touch; he’s out of reach.

    If he wants state and local governments to preserve their jobs or at least to minimize layoffs, Obama should be giving them six words of advice: Do what Scott Walker has done. But he won’t do that. As the Wall Street Journal said in its marvelous editorial following Obama’s expressed ignorance which is miles beyond the level of a mere gaffe, “Governments are having to lay off workers to pay for their rising pension and health bills.” States which have faced up to those twin problems, like Governor Walker’s Wisconsin, have averted thousands of layoffs while preserving services. States like Ohio — which tried something similar but saw their efforts subverted by the left/organized labor axis — have seen thousands of layoffs. Union bosses would rather see younger members thrown out on the streets than give up even the smallest portion of their oversized, outdated, and unsustainable wages and benefits.

    There is potential good news in all of this. Obama, in continuing his tired push for more stimulus to state and local governments which won’t reform themselves while making life miserable for a private sector which he still insists is “doing fine,” appears to be sowing the seeds of his own November defeat to a degree where the non-stop establishment press excuse-making and cover-ups still might not be able to prevent it.[/QUOTE]

    You should link to the original when you post this much of it:

    [url]http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-private-sector-is-not-fine-the-public-sector-is-still-fat/2/[/url]

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,141
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4489347]Quick, who has a better record in regard with private sector jobs...Bush or Obama?[/QUOTE]

    Bush again...we're 5 months from the election & it's Bush again?? meathead

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;4489763]Bush again...we're 5 months from the election & it's Bush again?? meathead[/QUOTE]

    Who cares what Bush did. He was disappointing to fiscal conservatives. Barack ran on a PLATFORM of green jobs. He has purposely blocked drilling and resource exploration in favor of the green jobs agenda. The whole idea was a fail. No green jobs were created. Hundreds of billions wasted on an agenda that failed miserably. People voted for Barack because they wanted better then what we had under Bush. Comparing the two is the ultimate show of disapproval for Barry.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Tucker134;4489763]Bush again...we're 5 months from the election & it's Bush again?? meathead[/QUOTE]

    Insults aside, does it matter that BO has IMPROVED the # of private sector jobs over his predecessor or not?

  15. #15
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4489789]People voted for Barack because they wanted better then what we had under Bush..[/QUOTE]

    And you got more private sector jobs created.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,117
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4489795]Insults aside, does it matter that BO has IMPROVED the # of private sector jobs over his predecessor or not?[/QUOTE]
    Obama was allowed to backtrack and take it back when it he said the private sector is fine.

    Fairness dictates that JI afford you the same courtesy.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4489797]And you got more private sector jobs created.[/QUOTE]

    Please. There was a massive difference in the unemployment rates that skews the figures. In the 2008 housing recession the economy lost 9 million jobs from peak to trough. The 2001 recession we lost 2.6 million jobs from peak to trough. We had reagained all 2.6 million jobs within 15 months of the trough.

    [IMG]http://craphound.com/images/jobsrecessionsSM.jpg[/IMG]

    You will note on the chart that once the economy bottomed we had a major bounceback and within 15 months we regained every job lost. That is the dissapointment with the current situation. 27 Months in to the "recovery" and we haven't even regained half of the lost jobs back.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is another chart that makes the issue clearer.

    [IMG]http://www.economiccollapse.net/wp-content/uploads/employment-recession-job-losses-640x415.jpg[/IMG]

    Note that the 2001 recession was rather mild when it came to job losses. The recovery was gradual there but within 48 months the economy had regained all of the lost jobs and then some. The sharper declines in previous recessions were always followed by a sharper recovery. The Obama recovery has broken the trend. We have decelerating job growth at the moment. Economic growth is below average and well below the average that generally happens after a recovery.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us