Romney's a moron: he NAMES police, firefighters and teachers as being things that those great Wisconsinites decided they don't need, and now, all of the nation should follow suit. How this makes sense to him or anyone else is beyond me.
I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this c...
I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this c...
Romney's a moron: he NAMES police, firefighters and teachers as being things that those great Wisconsinites decided they don't need, and now, all of the nation should follow suit. How this makes sense to him or anyone else is beyond me.
I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this country falls into despair, it's nothing more than the fault of a state with a recent recall election. Don't believe the left, when they tell you it was the right that fought to make sure government jobs weren't created.
We now know better. Thanks a lot, Wisconsin.
(more)I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this country falls into despair, it's nothing more than the fault of a state with a recent recall election. Don't believe the left, when they tell you it was the right that fought to make sure government jobs weren't created.
We now know better. Thanks a lot, Wisconsin.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/r...
Hmmm... seems to me that people have been losing their jobs there in record numbers, actually.
Let's see the urban blight because there wasn't enough firefighters to put out the fires. See how many companies city mayors can attract with these kind of scenes.
Now of course, there are some that believe in free markets, and if they are good at their jobs, could easily transition over to private schools, and the private sector. But too many are selfish, and shrills for liberal special interests.
Only a police state has any need for a cop, or should I say revenue-enhancement pirate?, lurking behind every bush. But a free society might have need, to employ some private security guards.
Firefighters? While many do admirable jobs, how come I've seen so many YouTube videos, in which firefighters take their sweet old time, and it takes them many minutes, just to figure out how to turn on the water? Lazy government employee syndrome? In the private sector, where profits matter, we might have to let some of those slow-pokes go. Firefighting is not a "take your time" job.
Government jobs do NOT grow the economy. Government spending burdens and shrinks the economy. Only the profit-making private sector can produce and pay the bills. Gee, doesn't anybody study economics anymore?
Now of course, there are some that believe in free markets, and if they are good at their jobs, could easily transition over to private schools, and the private sector. But too many are selfish, and shrills for liberal special interests.
Only a police state has any need for a cop, or should I say revenue-enhancement pirate?, lurking behind every bush. But a free society might have need, to employ some private security guards.
Firefighters? While many do admirable jobs, how come I've seen so many YouTube videos, in which firefighters take their sweet old time, and it takes them many minutes, just to figure out how to turn on the water? Lazy government employee syndrome? In the private sector, where profits matter, we might have to let some of those slow-pokes go. Firefighting is not a "take your time" job.
Government jobs do NOT grow the economy. Government spending burdens and shrinks the economy. Only the profit-making private sector can produce and pay the bills. Gee, doesn't anybody study economics anymore?
It is appalling that Americans are so clueless when it comes to economics.
Added to say:
Who around here is trying to censor me? That is not acceptable!
So you really think that just because your pocket was picked, it's okay for you to pick other people's pockets? So where does it end then?
Who do you blame for this? Both Parties? Then you need to support Ron Paul, and if he doesn't pull something in Tampa and somehow take the Republican nomination, then probably go with Libertarian Gary Johnson, who somebody suggested may make Ron Paul his running mate. If that happens, I wonder if he might pull more votes than O'Romney, and then we re-elect Obama and the country is over, because we were screwed by the GOP? Or we could re-elect Obam-ney and then we are still screwed?
The American economy is no longer sustainable. When was the last time you looked at the debt chart spiral? That's why more and more people are eying the exits, and it's becoming fashionable (Facebook founder) to renounce citizenship.
It is appalling that Americans are so clueless when it comes to economics.
Added to say:
Who around here is trying to censor me? That is not acceptable!
So you really think that just because your pocket was picked, it's okay for you to pick other people's pockets? So where does it end then?
Who do you blame for this? Both Parties? Then you need to support Ron Paul, and if he doesn't pull something in Tampa and somehow take the Republican nomination, then probably go with Libertarian Gary Johnson, who somebody suggested may make Ron Paul his running mate. If that happens, I wonder if he might pull more votes than O'Romney, and then we re-elect Obama and the country is over, because we were screwed by the GOP? Or we could re-elect Obam-ney and then we are still screwed?
The American economy is no longer sustainable. When was the last time you looked at the debt chart spiral? That's why more and more people are eying the exits, and it's becoming fashionable (Facebook founder) to renounce citizenship.
Pardon me but half the country is not sitting on their duff waiting on a hand-out from the people working AND paying their taxes plus the taxes for the multinational corporations who receive OUR tax money to employ slave labor in Asia.
Strictly speaking, a "civil servant" is someone whose job is subject to and essentially results from the "Civil Service Act." Such as, the Federal Elections Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, etc. "Civil servants" are by definition federal positions; they have GS-grade pay levels.
So, there's a disconnect with the terminology used and the thing being discussed. Teachers, firefighters, and police are not part of the civil service, they do not have federal GS-grade pay levels, and are in no way federal employees. They are employees of a State, County, Parish, City, Township, whatever non-federal governmental entity. And, in some cases they aren't even employees of any governmental entity, but contract workers.
All three of the jobs in question used to be performed by us. That is, we used to teach our kids, put out our fires, and police our communities all by ourselves. Then, we got too busy to do all of that on a regular basis. So there was the volunteer fire brigade that consisted of a subset...
Strictly speaking, a "civil servant" is someone whose job is subject to and essentially results from the "Civil Service Act." Such as, the Federal Elections Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Social Security Administration, Department of Agriculture, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, etc. "Civil servants" are by definition federal positions; they have GS-grade pay levels.
So, there's a disconnect with the terminology used and the thing being discussed. Teachers, firefighters, and police are not part of the civil service, they do not have federal GS-grade pay levels, and are in no way federal employees. They are employees of a State, County, Parish, City, Township, whatever non-federal governmental entity. And, in some cases they aren't even employees of any governmental entity, but contract workers.
All three of the jobs in question used to be performed by us. That is, we used to teach our kids, put out our fires, and police our communities all by ourselves. Then, we got too busy to do all of that on a regular basis. So there was the volunteer fire brigade that consisted of a subset of the community who somewhat specialized in putting out fires. There was the one room school house or community church where the students' parents footed the bill for instruction. And, there was the sheriff who served at the leisure of the community, and was mostly there to organize the other community members effectively when needed, and to also settle disputes between community members; he didn't issue fines or the equivalent of "parking tickets," or go around looking for law breakers.
Those people really were serving their communities, sometimes for pay. Now, we have employees, not necessarily community members, that perform specific functions set out by the governmental entity for which they work. They don't "serve the public" in the way it's commonly thought; they don't serve the people that make up the community.
But basically, my point to all of that is, there is a level of need for each of these jobs. Using the creation of teaching, firefighting, or police jobs as a "stimulus" plan is wrong headed. If more of those jobs aren't needed, then the creation of them is pointless. Do some cities and counties need more firefighter? Sure, of course. But there are others that need fewer. Protecting those jobs as something sacred, something you can't cut is simply foolish.
With many cities, counties, and even states, hurting for cash in a very bad way; relying on them "to grow the economy" is a non-starter. The federal government isn't going to pay for them and the smaller governments can't afford them.
I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find me any information stating that this country needs less teachers, firefighters or police. If you would like to provide me some links pointing to that being the case, I'd love to see them.
And, when republican presidents had a slow economic recovery in past administrations for over 30 years, they used exactly the same strategy to boost the economy. They created more jobs in the public sector. Basic Kaysian Economics. Are you trying to say that republican economic policies of the last 30 to 40 years weren't working?
Just trying to understand your rationale, here.
Mr. Romney ?
Government jobs have grown under the last four republican presidents greatly and under Obama, they've dropped dramatically, so Obama is actually saying that Congress should do more of what their republican presidents have done in the past. Yet, thanks to Obama being Obama, the republicans don't want to do what they've always done.
I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this c...
I can't think of a time in America's history where police, firefighters, and teachers weren't a necessity and in short supply. With a growing populace, one would think that hiring more would be a no-brainer, but not to Romey, due to Wisconsinites.
WHAT?
Oh, and for those of you that want to point and wave your fingers, saying "Quiggle, you just don't know what he really means, which is government policies getting bigger... we don't need more of THAT" I've got your answer. All I've got to say is "look at republican policy for the last 30-plus years and see what they've done in slow economic times--or just look at kaysian economics, because it's basic theory."
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all used large government policies when things were looking grim to speed up economic recovery. They increased government spending and government jobs during their term. But, when Obama calls for doing the same thing, AFTER BREATHING LIFE into the PRIVATE SECTOR, he's deemed a socialist.
WHY? Oh, because Wisconsin decided all of that for us recently. If this country falls into despair, it's nothing more than the fault of a state with a recent recall election. Don't believe the left, when they tell you it was the right that fought to make sure government jobs weren't created.
We now know better. Thanks a lot, Wisconsin.
Elimination of EPA, HUD, Dept of energy , Dept of Education and similar agencies and reduced to state level is a great Idea.
See Wisconsin recall vote.
Are you kidding me? Those are three of the most underpaid professions I've ever heard of and here you are telling me that Wisconsin proved that the nation doesn't need them, because they recently didn't recall the moron in chief over there that just stuck it to unions?
What did Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 do in similar times of slow economic recovery? They created public sector jobs in order to spur the economy into growth. Why don't you agree with them, when it's worked all those times?
When Romney was asked if he'd cut spending in the White House by a trillion dollars his first year in office, he actually LAUGHED at the thought, because he knows that would destroy the country, but he's not coy about saying he'll do something similar if elected.
Have fun with that.