Reid says government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs

SOS

ONA
Wackbag Staff
Aug 14, 2000
48,116
8,880
938
USA
#1
the hill
Reid says 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 said 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.

"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.

Reid was responding to recent comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who accused Democrats of purposefully pursuing higher taxes as part of the teacher/first-responder bill, S. 1723, so that Republicans would oppose it. McConnell said the bill was meant to fail in order to give Democrats an issue to run on in the 2012 election, but Reid said the Republicans are simply trying to defeat President Obama any way they can.

The legislation Reid is defending is part of Obama's jobs package. Vice President Biden was in Pennsylvania, an important election state, on Tuesday to push for the administration's plan on increasing the number of teachers.

Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to "put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that's our priority." He said Republicans are calling the bill a "failure" because they are "using a different benchmark for success than we are."

Private-sector jobs have increased over the last 19 months, while government jobs have lagged. They've also seen cuts in several states that are struggling to balanced their books.

Reid also said a majority of people polled support the bill, and that the tax hike needed to fund the $35 billion spending program is minimal.

"My friend, the Republican leader … is complaining about a tax of one-half of 1 percent … on people who make more than $1 million a year to pay for a program that would stop teachers from being laid off and rehire some of the teachers that have been laid off," Reid said.

Democrats who support the bill have said it would help save 400,000 teacher jobs and thousands of first-responder jobs that have either been cut or could soon be cut. Reid said Wednesday that these layoffs are "rooted in the last administration," but did not explain further.

Senate Democrats are hoping to pass S. 1723 as early as this week, although votes could be delayed until early November, depending on the progress made on passing a 2012 spending bill.

Reid also dismissed efforts by the Republican House to ease environmental regulations as a way to create jobs.

"The Republican response has been cutting back environmental health safeguards, I guess hoping that a sicker, more polluted country is a better place to create jobs, and it's not," Reid said.
:really?:
 

Stig

Wackbag's New Favorite Heel
Jul 26, 2005
80,680
4,436
558
NH
#3
So Dems think the most important thing is to created jobs in 3 or 4 highly-specific fields (all unionized municipal jobs, of course) instead of across the broad spectrum of what people out in the labor force need?
Seriously, these fucktards make George W. Bush look like a genius.
 

Sinn Fein

Infidel and White Interloper
Wackbag Staff
Aug 29, 2002
31,444
2,154
818
Florida's Nature Coast
#4
I wonder if Harry Reid can coach football. Maybe he should trade jobs with Andy Reid.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#7
Private-sector jobs have increased over the last 19 months, while government jobs have lagged. They've also seen cuts in several states that are struggling to balanced their books.
So they're right? "whaa"

 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,774
18,522
513
Kingdom of Charis
#9
Private-sector jobs have increased over the last 19 months, while government jobs have lagged.
That's because the private sector is supposed to grow. The government is not.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#10
I have a better idea. Harry Reid can get sodomized by Robert Reed.

Literal Dave here

Robert Reid is dead

But I think any AIDS infected homosexual will be more than adequate for the needs of Harry Reid
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#12
So they're right? "whaa"

Interesting chart

When the Republicans are in charge of the Congress private sector (which funds the government sector) jobs increase, while when Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress private sector jobs decrease
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
Interesting chart

When the Republicans are in charge of the Congress private sector (which funds the government sector) jobs increase, while when Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress private sector jobs decrease
1. Republicans are not in control of Congress in ANY of those years represented in the chart.

2. Don't you ever get tired of that retarded meme?

Let's look at government expansion when the Repubs ran the table and controlled both houses of Congress AND the presidency. Even given the benefit of the doubt in the two years after 9/11 it still had a steady climb upwards.

 

JonBenetRamsey

well shit the bed
Aug 30, 2005
17,419
8,783
628
woodland critter christmas park nj
#17
1. Republicans are not in control of Congress in ANY of those years represented in the chart.

2. Don't you ever get tired of that retarded meme?

Let's look at government expansion when the Repubs ran the table and controlled both houses of Congress AND the presidency. Even given the benefit of the doubt in the two years after 9/11 it still had a steady climb upwards.

speaking of 9/11, a lot of fucking jobs will be created if they'd just re-build the towers.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#20
1. Republicans are not in control of Congress in ANY of those years represented in the chart.

2. Don't you ever get tired of that retarded meme?

Let's look at government expansion when the Repubs ran the table and controlled both houses of Congress AND the presidency. Even given the benefit of the doubt in the two years after 9/11 it still had a steady climb upwards.


I did say when the Democrats control BOTH houses of Congress private sector jobs decrease


Seriously, is anyone giving W a pass here ?

All you have is: "But, but, but Bush ....... "

Yea I think we all know W was a fucko and expanded gov't & the debt more than any other POTUS until Little Barry came along

How many times did you claim the dog hate your homework ?
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#24
I did say when the Democrats control BOTH houses of Congress private sector jobs decrease
They also increased. You also said this:

When the Republicans are in charge of the Congress private sector (which funds the government sector) jobs increase
So look at about midway into 2003 in that chart I posted. You're flat out wrong making that statement. When Repubs had the entire Congress AND the White House, private sector jobs went down. Are you going to pull a "Bbb..bbut...Clinton" there?

Seriously, is anyone giving W a pass here ?
You certainly did until November of 2008.

All you have is: "But, but, but Bush ....... "

Yea I think we all know W was a fucko and expanded gov't & the debt more than any other POTUS until Little Barry came along

How many times did you claim the dog hate your homework ?
Is that what happened to your homework? Because apparently you can't read a fucking chart. Government jobs have steadily DECREASED (except for the jump for the census) since he took office. There's also a pay freeze in effect.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,347
21,959
398
Northern California
#25
So various governments can't afford their highly paid unionized employees, so government employment decreases. The answer to that is to increase employment? Are they fucking blind to why those jobs went away in the first place?

I seriously want a ten year federal hiring freeze (with the exception of wartime military). Let the retirees and other absences decrease the size of the federal government, without leading to new unemployment, and if an agency is desperately in need of someone they have to cross-train them from a related agency. It's drastic but one of the only ways the federal government will learn how to function within its means.