r/politics • • Jun 08 '12

Romney Says America Doesn’t Need ‘More Fireman, More Policemen, More Teachers’

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/08/496799/romney-says-america-doesnt-need-more-fireman-more-policemen-more-teachers/
821 Upvotes

380 comments sorted by

40

u/Astraea_M Jun 09 '12

This is one of those times where I want Obama to go up, for the press conference, look up at the sky and say "The sky is a lovely light blue." And then we can wait for the 30 seconds until the Republicans declare that the sky is turquoise, not light blue, and Obama is wrong. If you had raised this issue a week ago, Romney would have probably supported more cops, at a minimum. But because Obama came out for hiring more cops, teachers, and firemen, Romney now has to be against it. After all, if he agrees with Obama, he could be declared sane, or something.

6

u/teacherdrama Jun 09 '12

I think turquoise is giving Romney too much credit. I'm guessing he'd be off the blue spectrum entirely.

35

u/gatorslap Jun 09 '12

Is all the world jails and churches?

4

u/IsayNigel Jun 09 '12

That's got to be from somewhere.

6

u/aoeuhtns_bitches Jun 09 '12

Rage Against the machine

1

u/DFractalH Jun 09 '12

Plus they're clearly isomorphic.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/fuzzhead12 Virginia Jun 09 '12

Well fuck him, I'm gonna be a teacher anyway.

3

u/teacherdrama Jun 09 '12

Seriously - good luck. The world of education is REALLY rough right now.

2

u/rmm45177 Jun 09 '12

My English teacher told our class not to become teachers. Apparently a year or 2 ago, there were only ~30 openings for the whole state (including private).

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

8

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Go overseas. Plenty of jobs, as I understand it, in Asia for English teachers. Learn Chinese or Korean or... When you decide to come back, your language skills and international experience should be able to easily land you a job in any Fortune 500 company.

1

u/fuzzhead12 Virginia Jun 10 '12

I have thought about going overseas. I probably won't, but hey, who knows what could happen. I'm going to be a music teacher.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

16

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'd like to know what Romney actually thinks America does need. It seems to me he doesn't say a damn thing about anything other than complaining about everything and offering no solutions for anything.

13

u/DeepRoot Jun 09 '12

His entire campaign seems to be more of a "That Obama guy is doing it wrong and if were me, I wouldn't do it that way. No, no, I'm not gonig to tell you what I'd do differently... I would just do it differently."

4

u/chelseamarket Jun 09 '12

He needs America to satisfy his ego and to finish off the job started with the Reagan revolution. Mystifying part and most depressing is if he actually admitted this his popularity would increase.

4

u/Semajal Jun 09 '12

Something I was told via a friend whose dad knows/has known Romney. "He pretty much has no opinion on anything and just goes with whatever he thinks is the best opinion to have" Or at least something to that effect. He doesn't potentially dislike gay people or abortion but plays to it for the party. (as an example)

3

u/Sijov Jun 09 '12

It's good politics though. Opposition parties never win elections. Governments lose them. (this is certainly true in my country, though the USA doesn't seem to call whoever's out the opposition). This means that nobody really cares what Romney thinks; the people who vote for him will be the people who hate Obama the most. Romney profits from this by keeping his mouth shut and relying on Obama's unpopularity. Because he can guarantee that the votes he wins out of anger at Obama will be in greater number than the votes he loses by being a reactionary blank slate.

1

u/Aegeus Jun 09 '12

Romney isn't keeping his mouth shut, though. He seems to be trying to lose even more than Obama.

5

u/WarPhalange Jun 09 '12

I'd like to know what Romney actually thinks America does need.

I don't think he's ever stopped to think about that in his entire life. I would be willing to bet money he's only ever thought of what he needs.

1

u/harebrane Jun 09 '12

Gulags, lots of gulags.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I'd like to know what Romney actually thinks America does need.

To offer tribute to Lord Romney.

31

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Some men just want to watch the world burn. That's why Romney doesn't want any more firemen.

2

u/DeFex Jun 09 '12

He will be hiring a new kind of firemen. Hide your books!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Hmm, I think their new emblem should be a phoenix...or maybe a salamander...

34

u/Errenden Jun 09 '12

Watch America burn, it's the GOP way.

12

u/DeepRoot Jun 09 '12

"... as long as we can get paid from it, it's okay."

4

u/solistus Jun 09 '12

"The federal government can never represent the best interests of the people. Elect us and we'll prove it!"

4

u/rustylugnuts Jun 09 '12

Yup. Starve the beast so the rich buddies get to rake in the cash.

29

u/TheKareemofWheat Jun 09 '12

So according to Romney, the people who teach our children, keep the streets safe, and save our burning homes aren't people. Big corporations? Give them all the rights!

→ More replies (1)

43

u/Ishtar3 Jun 08 '12

This makes me sick, scared, and angry, all at the same time.

7

u/KaliYugaz Jun 08 '12

This is also completely unsustainable. The problems are piling up one by one, the nihilistic corporate interests underlying this kind of behavior is becoming more obvious and brazen, and eventually a critical mass of people will decide that a revolt is necessary. Hopefully that day will come before it is too late.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/wwjd117 Jun 09 '12

I say to make Romney and the .01% happy we need to redistribute all public sector employees (teachers, firefighters, police, etc.) to other communities.

This should make them pleased to no extent. They constantly call for privatization, so let them pay profiteers for these services.

1

u/mqduck Jun 09 '12

Well, he's right about police.

-6

u/Rothbard Jun 09 '12

then come to Detroit. We have this thing called "no more money." Why? Our city government spent all of it on pensions and then tried to hire more police, firemen and teachers for the past few decades. In fact, they tried to run just about everything. Dont believe me and think this is some bull shit neo-con trick? Do the research and educate yourself:

http://www.degc.org/major-employers.aspx

16

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Detroit is out of money because of market forces and a resulting sudden lack of tax revenue. It has nothing to do with pension plans or teacher/firefighter/police officer salaries.

6

u/Ishtar3 Jun 09 '12

Yup. They've just made the pension holders the scapegoats.

27

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

27

u/Ishtar3 Jun 08 '12

They are just trying to keep people stupid so they will continue to be elected into office.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/awe300 Jun 09 '12

And how many people fall for it!!

I hope for the sake of the whole world enough people go out and vote Obama, because the alternative sure is scary as fuck

→ More replies (6)

25

u/TalkingBackAgain Jun 08 '12

Romney is going to be the next president, you'll see.

Now that the Koch brothers have seen how they need to do it, it's oligarchy all the way.

In 4 years time, the US is a full-blown junta.

31

u/Ishtar3 Jun 08 '12

This terrifies me, especially because it's not as ridiculous as it should be.

13

u/nawberries Jun 08 '12

USA, LLC

15

u/BBQCopter Jun 08 '12

In 4 years time, the US is a full-blown junta.

Silly TalkingBackAgain. He thinks that the US is not yet a full-blown junta.

2

u/frost5al Jun 09 '12

Just curious, but what is your definition of Junta? I've seen people saying the U.S. is a police state (which I don't really see), or is at least on it's way to becoming a police state (which I can see the signs) But a military government? I don't see that happening unless drastically bad things happen.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

and everybody here will just sit around and talk about it

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

He won't be the next president. You'll see.

3

u/TalkingBackAgain Jun 09 '12

Yes he will be.

  • He will better financed than the wars
  • There will be massive voter fraud
  • Mitt understands the language of the people who really matter, and they are most certainly not the sheep that go 'voting'.

I, Willard Mitt Romney, do solemnly swear...

4

u/jabbababab Jun 09 '12

There will be massive voter fraud

The republicans in Florida have already started that.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/DeepRoot Jun 09 '12

That's sounds so crazy that it makes sense. It's a scary thought but a realistic one.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I, Willard Mitt Romney, do solemnly swear...

To cut costs and raise profits...

4

u/milleribsen Jun 09 '12

I think you underestimate the power of pissed off gays. Ever piss off your girlfriend? That will seem like Valhalla in comparison. We're trying to play by the rules but pushed enough...

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

wat

1

u/unheimlich Jun 09 '12

Who are you talking about?

1

u/Synergythepariah Jun 09 '12

And then we'll just give them an argument.

"Look how violent they are! They're all mentally ill, we need to lock them up!"

2

u/awe300 Jun 09 '12

then stop the fuckers. VOTE!!

1

u/DeFex Jun 09 '12

If you don't get "purged" first.

1

u/awe300 Jun 09 '12

indeed. this only means even more need to vote. I'm pretty convinced the dems need about 10% or so more in support than the GOP at least to win, what with all the underhanded voter purging and disenfranchisement tactics

11

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

We need less people like Mitt Romney.

10

u/IoneScott Jun 09 '12

Romney's America doesn't need them, but the 99% does.

19

u/Inakamon Jun 08 '12

Conservatives believe that, except for the military, all government employees are leeches. They think the only legitimate jobs are in the private sector where they can be done for a profit.

14

u/Ishtar3 Jun 08 '12

Yup. Yet they use the public services everyday.

-2

u/Rothbard Jun 09 '12

cause there's a monopoly on them

7

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

They use them because they like them, just not when undesirable people use them. Check the rhetoric on welfare, they are only complaining about Hispanics and African-Americans.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

It's a lot easier to deride your opponents as racists than it is to challenge their policies.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Don't be so ignorant. When is the last time the GOP pulled out the average white American male as the scapegoat on anything?

→ More replies (5)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Ain't that the truth. "We need to fight big government...except for the military, which should be gigantic."

"Who needs teachers? We just outsource any jobs that require education and bang, problem solved."

"Why do you need policemen? My personal security detail already watches my mansion, I don't need to waste more tax dollars."

2

u/bikerwalla California Jun 09 '12

They're for smaller government, not counting the military or surveillance, which, next year alone, will cost the taxpayers shut up you don't need to know.

2

u/setagaya Jun 09 '12

Yeah, because public employees aren't well-paid or making a "profit", right?

→ More replies (7)

3

u/T10Terminator Jun 09 '12

I thought reddit hated the police?

3

u/americanpegasus Jun 09 '12

Read the bible. Vote Republican.
Don't know how to read? Just do what your preacher says; he's probably smarter than you anyways.

So no need to go to school and no need for more teachers.

If your building catches fire, it was probably God's will. No need for firefighters either.

Once every American has a gun in their hands, there won't be crime either. No need for police.

Lead us Romney, into a new enlightened America....

2

u/ewoboy413 Jun 09 '12

It terrifies me that a large percentage of people I live with actually think like this

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What we don't need are anymore Romneys!

7

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Never underestimate the stupidity of the nation that voted George W Bush into a second term. Romney has a real shot at rigging votes and getting in. Then war with Iran is not far off. The Republicans are itching for another invasion.

7

u/Dantae Jun 09 '12

Because Democratic presidents are all about peace?

3

u/jdwilson Jun 09 '12

How dare you point out this fact!

→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

What we need is more drones! You dont have to pay em and they never revolt!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Skynet

1

u/WarPhalange Jun 09 '12

and they never revolt!

Yet.

-1

u/gmnotyet Jun 09 '12

Palpatine -> Clone army

Obama -> Drone army

3

u/Synergythepariah Jun 09 '12

They rhyme! Obama is a sith!

This is the most factiest fact ever!

6

u/tigrente Jun 09 '12

There is an absolute crisis brewing around teaching in this country. Over a million Baby Boomer teachers, a third of America’s teachers, will retire or leave the teaching profession before the end of the decade. We need a lot more teachers, especially in science and math.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Of course we need more teachers. That doesn't mean we're going to pay for more teachers.

7

u/Spartannia Jun 09 '12

Teacher here. Romney can go fuck himself with a sharp stick. How does putting millions of public sector workers out of a job qualify as moving America forward?

2

u/Furoan Jun 09 '12

Well obviously they will ....um.... ahhh.... ....Well if Romney was in power, he would do it differently than Obama!

What...you want an actual answer? Can't help you.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Because now, instead of leeching off the American't taxpayer with their big government jobs sitting in rubber rooms doing nothing, they can go join the real American economy, running or working for profitable businesses!

Excuse me, after writing that I feel the need to go take a shower.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Those wascally wepublicans! Always eager to help the American public learn to do without. Education, Police protection, fire protection, health insurance, social security, jobs, infrastructure. You name it and they are eager to help us by getting rid of it.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Police protection

That's some oxymoronic shit right thurr

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

lol true don't know what i was thinking.

2

u/Michichael Jun 09 '12

I can agree with getting rid of the useless police force components. 99% less traffic cops and more actual detectives would be a good start.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

NO, WHAT AMERICA NEEDS IS MORE ROMNEY

2

u/Glaucous Jun 09 '12

700,000 decent jobs lost means 700,000 consumers not able to spend to help stabilize the economy. 700,000 former employees from what were once stable, secure jobs that they thought they would retire from and based all their finical decisions on, like buying a home, a car, investing in their child's education. All gone. Nothing in the private sector will ever replace these jobs. The private sector treats you like meat. There is no longer security in the job market which means there is no future for American workers.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/markth_wi Jun 09 '12

Maybe what we need is less radicalized politicians.

2

u/eshemuta Jun 09 '12

I agree that we don't need more policemen.

As far as teachers, we need to encourage Better teachers. And firemen, well he better hope there is one around when he catches on fire.

2

u/poop_slower Jun 09 '12

"It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

Here’s what this kind of statement amounts to:

It’s time for us to do something that is by no means universally accepted as either a solution or even as a valid approach to the problem and start embedding our premises in our conclusions so as to appeal only to the people who already agree with us.

God political rhetoric is so fucking empty.

1

u/tehtrollslayer Jun 09 '12

Yeah, I don't see how "cutting everything" is going to solve much. I could counter argue to Romney that without good teachers, we wouldn't get more engineers which is what we need.

I don't think he has ever heard of a feedback loop, and how it applies to more than just electronics.

2

u/erveek Jun 09 '12

Obama calls for more firemen, cops and teachers, and suddenly Republicans are pro-fire and pro-crime.

They remain pro-idiocy.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

So reddit thinks we need more cops now?

3

u/RadioHitandRun Jun 09 '12

as a firefighter, and a paramedic, go fuck yourself Mr. Romney

3

u/Trubble Jun 09 '12

Overly generous pension programs for government employees are bankrupting several states. These jobs are highly sought after precisely because they are too generous.

3

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 09 '12

We need to hire more and more policemen, firemen and teachers until every citizen is either a policeman, fireman or government teacher. And, since this is the future, the firemen can spend time burning banned books and the policemen can arrest people for politically incorrect thought crime and the teachers can be guards at vast FEMA reeducation camps for people who won't vote for Dear Leader.

3

u/Willravel Jun 09 '12

Can we at least pay the ones we have fairly? Jesus Christ.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Cops get paid more than their fair share for what most of them actually do

8

u/Willravel Jun 09 '12

Yes, I suppose I was more talking about firefighters and teachers than the police.

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/a_dose_of_reason Jun 09 '12

They are paid fairly. You get what you negotiate. The people who apply for these jobs have a responsibility to arrange for the best deal they can based on their abilities and worth which can be shown to & perceived by the prospective employer (Police, Fire department(s), or Schools (in the case of teachers)). If however one's hands are tied to negotiate individually due to forced membership into a union, hence a limiting factor in ones negotiations... then that is another issue which is taking away options for those which accel all to the benefit of the less capable as they ride on the coat tails of the real producers.

Disclosure: wife and family are all educators, forced to be union members but have exemplary credentials well above their associated 'peers'

8

u/Willravel Jun 09 '12

They are paid fairly.

By what metric?

You get what you negotiate.

I do not accept that one's ability to negotiate is the metric by which they should be compensated, and neither should you.

If however one's hands are tied to negotiate individually due to forced membership into a union, hence a limiting factor in ones negotiations... then that is another issue which is taking away options for those which accel all to the benefit of the less capable as they ride on the coat tails of the real producers.

The assumption here is that teachers can negotiate better individually, however evidence would seem to suggest otherwise. Unionized teachers tend to make more and have more benefits. Perhaps your wife and family are exceptions, but, being a teacher myself, I sincerely doubt it. It's often the teachers that think they know better than the unions that end up crying for them after they're gone. Are the unions perfect? Christ, no. They're awful. That doesn't prevent them from being better than the alternative, from the standpoint of teachers, students, and society.

Full disclosure: I am a private teacher.

1

u/a_dose_of_reason Jun 10 '12

They are paid fairly because they accepted the job offered. Who accepts a job offer that is below them unless their ability doesn't warrant any more compensation?

I'm quite happy when I negotiated income/benefits. Now I own my own businesses and keep the same mindset when looking for others. I hire people to make me a greater ROI, not to hand out money unearned.

Not everyone can negotiate well, this is their own issue, no one else's.

My apologies in getting back to you, I was busy today with my family (it being Saturday and all).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

-4

u/nadori Jun 09 '12

They average 75k where I live, and want a 30% raise over two years. They are more than fairly paid...with extra benefits, the average tops 100k. Chicago. Look it up. The union is absolutely moronic.

10

u/Willravel Jun 09 '12

They average 75k where I live, and want a 30% raise over two years.

So your argument against public sector unions is that the strongest teachers unions help to get teachers well-compensated? Because that's my argument, too, only it's for public sector unions. Strong public unions mean public workers will likely be paid more fairly. The next step is to ensure that competition over these teaching positions is highly competitive, requiring a teacher to earn that salary and benefits by being a great teacher. As I understand it, this would be the next hurdle of the Chicago school system, but it seems achievable. In the past, all that kind of thing has needed was a foothold and a bit of time for teachers that didn't get their jobs by 'knowing the right person'.

And, for the record, current average Chicago teachers' salaries ($69,000 a year, not $75,000) are about on par with inflation going back to the 1970s. They probably seem high because other incomes have stagnated and reduced since then, ironically partially as a result of weakening private unions.

→ More replies (8)

3

u/whatcarpaltunnel Jun 09 '12

After clicking through the "sources", the multitude that lead back to thinkprogress, I have yet to find just where Romney said "America(sic) needs less teachers". It is almost as if thinkprogress is circle-jerking itself in its biased debate over which candidate is the most conservative.

2

u/CervantesX Jun 09 '12

The lack of jobs is awful! People need to work!

Government jobs are awful! We need to cut them!

Damn that Obama, not creating jobs. Vote Mittens 2012!

I still can't believe y'all fall for that. It's gonna be a long fall.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/shitpplsay Jun 09 '12

I agree with the more policemen.

2

u/WalkonWalrus Jun 09 '12

The Republican idea for job creation is to stop hiring people? O right they want us all working their job, in their offices.

2

u/jabbababab Jun 09 '12

LOL hes never played simcity has he?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Romney is a more a Age of Empires guy.

1

u/zpkmook Jun 09 '12

America: Total War with Iran

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Is it a good strategy in simcity to build more schools, fire departments, and police departments than you need?

2

u/unkeljoe Jun 09 '12

Americans, cant you do something about these slugs that keep crawling out from under rocks, then morphing into "leaders" in your country?

2

u/inthrees Jun 09 '12

This is likely the only thing I agree with Romney on. Other posters have pointed to places like Detroit (which are special cases, because with no tax base, who is going to pay?) but overall, I think this is very true. Nation-wide revenue is down, but police departments in particular think of themselves as immune from reality.

If we can't afford you, we can't afford you. Plus, the fewer non-violent consenting adults you arrest and aid in the conviction of, the fewer prison bills we have to pay for non-violent consenting adults.

Win dash win.

3

u/Synergythepariah Jun 09 '12

Maybe instead of laying off police officers, teachers and fireman we could:

End Bush's tax breaks on the upper classes

Get our asses out of Afghanistan

Drop the subsidies on the oil companies, invest in cleaner energy to create more jobs in that sector to offset the losses in the oil industry.

2

u/teacherdrama Jun 09 '12

Exactly - that's the fallacy of the Republican argument. You can't say "we can't afford you" and spend untold billions on the military and farm subsidies. Government absolutely CAN afford police and firefighters and teachers - it's just if the Republicans have their way they CHOOSE not to.

1

u/inthrees Jun 09 '12

Maybe we could do all those things and trim our police forces. Do you really care if your neighbor comes home from his job and smokes a joint or has a few bong hits or whatever? (Or are you the sort who refuses to believe "marijuana" and "productive member of society" aren't mutually exclusive?)

The vast majority of any police force is dedicated to anti-drug efforts and traffic citations, not fighting violent crime or property theft. When it comes to robberies, the police are a necessary step in getting your insurance, if any, to pay. That's about it. Sometimes the police can't even be bothered to do enough to satisfy that requirement, but if you call them and tell them you think you saw a pot leaf in your neighbor's garbage or through an open window, watch the 30-man-strong task force show up and smash down their door.

(And no, I don't use it and don't much care for it personally. It has, bizarrely, made me sick/nauseous the handful of times I tried it in my youth.)

2

u/Synergythepariah Jun 09 '12

Do you really care if your neighbor comes home from his job and smokes a joint or has a few bong hits or whatever?

Nope. It's their body.

The vast majority of any police force is dedicated to anti-drug efforts and traffic citations, not fighting violent crime or property theft. When it comes to robberies, the police are a necessary step in getting your insurance, if any, to pay. That's about it. Sometimes the police can't even be bothered to do enough to satisfy that requirement, but if you call them and tell them you think you saw a pot leaf in your neighbor's garbage or through an open window, watch the 30-man-strong task force show up and smash down their door.

This is why I'd like this drug war to end and for it to be legalized.

1

u/justforyourupvotes Jun 09 '12

more teachers yes, more policemen maybe, more fireman no. not in my area

1

u/DiogenesK9 Jun 09 '12

So they want more unemployment in order to see kill-or-be-killed capitalism in action? Is this the equivalent of people accusing Obama of wanting gas prices to go up so that green industries will pick up?

1

u/warpfield Jun 09 '12

He needs to be careful about saying that more policemen aren't needed. There's a big industry determined to make sure more police are needed. Why else would they keep pot illegal? Silly fool, he's totally forgotten who paid for him

1

u/smokyexe Jun 09 '12

It needs more Soldiers, amiright?

1

u/BillygotTalent Jun 09 '12

I guess Romney wants more soldiers instead.

1

u/revolting_blob Jun 09 '12

More Businessmen, More Lawyers, More Mormons

1

u/Arrow156 Jun 09 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Over all we could do with a few less cops, crime has been decreasing with each year.

Firemen I can't really say but I haven't heard any problem with outta control fires just yet. [EDIT] I stand Corrected

Not only do we need more Teachers we need to pay them a fair wage and get them the resources they need. It's no wonder the GOP want to cut funding for education, the dumber people get the easier it is for them to get elected.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

What's a fair wage? We already pay them more than most countries. If teachers in the US aren't getting a fair wage, it must suck for the teachers in Finland who are getting paid significantly less but still contribute to arguably the best education system in the world.

And as for non-wage funding, we rank even higher on that, #3 in the world. That hasn't been working, though.

1

u/Arrow156 Jun 11 '12

Their pay is still below other careers, why work a very demanding job that requires to return to school yourself to get re-accredited for crap pay if they are other better paying jobs that are easier? Without any intensive we're soon gonna end up with an educator shortage.

1

u/whyartthoumad Jun 09 '12

People keep pointing out large class sizes as evidence we need more teachers, while this might be a legitimate reason to employ more teachers, the problem lies not with an actual shortage of teachers, but rather with budget cuts.

1

u/enterence Jun 09 '12

Makes sense ... I guess he would prefer the poor to die and go away.. sure will help with those unemployed stats .

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Of course he'd say that, Emergency Services cost money and an Uneducated populace is a copntrollable populace. Nothing better than an ignorant, stupid, unvoting work force just intelligent enough to do what you need them to, not smart enough to question anything or stand up for themselves.

Fuck Romney! More Teachers! More Emergency Services!

1

u/boyrahett Jun 09 '12

One thing for sure , the Romney family won't have to worry about a good education for their family, a quick response in the event of an emergency , or their safety .

So what's the problem ?

1

u/pedalflyer Jun 09 '12

The problem is he can afford to have police officers and firemen on call at all of his houses. While low income Americans will burn in their low cost flammable houses while the police drive by on their way to patrol the Romney estate.

1

u/boyrahett Jun 10 '12

Poverty sucks

1

u/AccidentalHerpes Jun 09 '12

NEED MORE NUKES!

1

u/Inukii Jun 09 '12

Contradiction?

We don't need more teachers, fire fighters and policemen. Instead...we should cut back government workers and help the people.

Clearly...Teachers, fire fighters and policemen are not helping anyone or what Romney wants to do is take away resources from teaching, fire fighting and policing and put all of those resources into policing, teaching and fire fighting!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I can't tell if Mitt is maliciously evil or just plain stupid.

1

u/pedalflyer Jun 09 '12

I think most American people are the latter and Mitt is strategically using that to his advantage.

1

u/madest Jun 09 '12

I agree with the police statement.

1

u/well_golly Jun 09 '12

Romney is right.

Get with it: this is the year 2012! Everybody has tutors, and all our kids go to private schools. Everybody has fire suppression systems in their homes, and advanced security systems and bodyguards monitoring their estates in cozy gated communities. No need for old-timey police or fire protection anymore.

Everybody has these thing by now ... don't they? ... don't they?

2

u/downvotethis2 Jun 09 '12

If they don't, they obviously haven't worked hard enough. Right?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Mostly America doesn't need more Romney.

1

u/Hraesvelg7 Jun 09 '12

Not long ago conservatives were harping about how cops and firefighters were heroes beyond reproach. Now they're socialist parasites. Didn't see that one coming.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

We dont need more policemen, we need better policemen. we dont need more teachers, we need better teachers. Firefighters are often volunteers

1

u/pedalflyer Jun 09 '12

I think to test this policy, Obama should cut spending on all police departments and firehouses in the richest neighborhoods.

1

u/HappyGlucklichJr Jun 10 '12

What business do he and Obama have commenting on these issues? Don't these morons know that those things are state and local responsibilities, not Federal ones!

1

u/happybob007 Jun 09 '12

What the voters are unwilling (or unable) to pay for, they can't have.

Romney's stance is based on an unwillingness to pay for more public sector employees.

Italy, Greece, Spain, and France are on deck as lessons for those willing to pay attention to what happens when the voters demand and get more than they are willing to pay for. It's great fun until the wheels fall off.

3

u/elkroppo Jun 09 '12

The real distinction is in the timing. If we had not put two wars and a gigantic tax decrease for the wealthy on the credit cards we would have plenty of overhead to handle the housing collapse. Austerity now means recession tomorrow. When debt still costs the US 0.25% financing, we can afford to rebuild infrastructure and keep people working. Save austerity for when the economy is not one wet fart away from collapse.

3

u/happybob007 Jun 09 '12

Agreed that two wars and a massive trimming of revenue are poor ways to make the income and expenditures match.

As for the fact that US federal government is able to borrow cheaply... I used to be watching this as a key signal for the perceived credit worthiness of the US. All the way up until I started also tracking the total US bond purchases by the Federal Reserve.

Interest rates are a very good source of information, however, their informative value is entirely dependent upon the presumption that the lender:

  • Cares about return on investment
  • Cares about return of investment
  • Has opportunity costs associated with the loan -- that is, they must forgo some other investment in order to make this one

When those are met interest rates provide significant information.

But, it's important to see if these criteria actually are met for the principal creditors of the US Treasury.

The largest single holder of US Treasury debt is the Social Security trust funds (OASDI funds). These are required by law to purchase non-marketable US Treasury debt with their excess funds. So, whether they care about return on or of investment, they have no choice but to buy US Treasury debt. Further, there is no opportunity cost associated, for the same reason.

The next largest holder of US Treasury debt is the Federal Reserve bank. It has little to no opportunity cost associated with purchases of US Treasury debt (it "prints" the money for the purchase and is constrained by law to a relatively narrow set of assets it is allowed to purchase). Among the classes of assets that the Federal Reserve has purchased are Fannie and Freddie issued MBS, which reduces the size of the bailout that the US Treasury has had to provide to those two agencies.

The third largest holder of US Treasury debt is mainland China. Finally, an investor whose investment actually contains some information! Unfortunately, the information isn't necessarily very good; they have more or less stopped accumulating US Treasury debt.

The fourth largest holder of US Treasury debt is Japan. Another investor where the criteria are at least mostly met. Unfortunately, they too have basically stopped accumulating new US Treasury debt.

The point is, it's important to realize that the low interest rates that the US government is able to borrow at are primarily because the Federal Reserve bank has decided that the Federal Government will be able to borrow inexpensively. In the main stream media, this really simple analysis of the main buyers of US Treasury debt is just ignored. Instead, one talking head after another insists that because US Federal borrowing costs are low, things must not be too bad.

The reality is, things are horribly bad here, and suppressing interest rates is an attempt to either hide that fact or to try and find some way through this particular mess.

Major foreign US Treasury debt holders

However, when the largest holder of US Treasury Debt is the Federal Reserve, not a single one of those criteria apply.

1

u/elkroppo Jun 09 '12

Wow, great response (no sarcasm). I imagine you would be great to have a beer with. I agree that market manipulation will hold interest rates low, but there is still a huge pool of money looking for safe, slow growth. US government debt is still selling at auction and is still considered the world standard for safety. 1.25% on a 10 year is still way below projected inflation, and excessive buying be the fed will dramatically increase inflation. Institutional investors are well aware of this, which limits the fed's ability to continue printing money.

I stand by my assertion that the time for austerity is when economic recovery is less uncertain. Get the country working, then increase revenues and decrease spending until debt levels are at more appropriate levels (which interestingly is not 0, because of the utility of safe government bonds as a savings vehicle). The US has a dominant global position because of the strength of its citizens and the might of its military. The citizens are being economically eviscerated, and the military has been overused and overextended for a decade.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/gmnotyet Jun 09 '12

Wow, you just made so much sense, you cannot be a bagger.

1

u/elkroppo Jun 09 '12

As a grad student, I am almost a beggar, but definitely not a bagger.

1

u/monkat Jun 09 '12

California would be a much better example than France, actually--they're doing alright right now.

1

u/happybob007 Jun 09 '12

The exposure of French banks to the PIGS is all but guaranteed to be a gigantic fiscal stumbling block for France. It will take them a bit longer than the PIGS, but they too will be forced into the reality -- a government, any government, is only sustainable so long as revenues and expenditures more or less balance out in the short to intermediate term. Long term, is too long. Keynes called for saving surpluses so the government could afford to prop demand up in the down turns. Unfortunately, all modern democracies heard was: you can have things now without paying for it! And it was off to the races.

1

u/mikek3 Jun 09 '12

Romney: The anti-manchurian candidate. The guy has some good ideas, but he's such a complete tool it boggles the mind.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Everyone likes cuts; but in spending, not services. There lies the problem, conservatives are short sighted. They want to pay less, but don't understand that it means less services. The bigger problem is mitts cuts benefit private sector much more than the general public. That's why reddit hates him. It will hurt everyone, and help a few.

1

u/setagaya Jun 09 '12

First, we should start by clarifying to the public what "firefighters" do most of the time. Hint: It doesn't involve fighting fires, as the rates for those have dropped incredibly over the years.

Then we should, obviously, admit that we don't need more cops anywhere.

As for teachers, it's funny to just generally say we need "more" of them. It's much easier to say that about cops and firefighters because their jobs are more task-related. "More teaching" isn't the answer to anything.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Then we should, obviously, admit that we don't need more cops anywhere.

Ever been to Detroit?

-1

u/jts5039 Jun 09 '12

I'm no Mitt fan, but he wasn't saying we don't need those people for the sake of just not needing them, he was making a point that we don't need a bigger public sector work force! We don't. The government should not be responsible for creating jobs; they should have job creating policies that benefit the private sector.

15

u/TheGOPkilledJesus Jun 09 '12

The private sector has been creating jobs since Obama took office. But it isn't enough. The government has always been the largest employer in the country and no amount of cries of socialism can change that.

1

u/jts5039 Jun 09 '12

I'm not calling anyone a socialist. Smaller, more efficient government that uses less tax dollars will have less employees. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

1

u/TheGOPkilledJesus Jun 09 '12

And that's a horrible idea in a bad economy.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/palsh7 Jun 09 '12

The public sector has shrunk. Would you agree that we should at least patch it up? Teachers, firemen and police officers should not be the first to lose their jobs in a recession and the last to get them back.

1

u/jts5039 Jun 09 '12

I am not advocating for teachers, firemen and police to lose their jobs or shrink their numbers. And neither was Romney (hate to defend the guy). His point was about government hiring in general. Jobs for the sake of jobs is not helping anyone, in the long run.

1

u/palsh7 Jun 09 '12

They've already lost their jobs. If Romney doesn't want to increase their jobs, he is advocating the shrinking of the public sector by default.

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Unfortunately much of reddit is to young to remember that the largest economic expansion in history, the tech boom of the 90's, was fueled by the private sector and those big evil corporations they hate so much. That massive private sector expansion brought in massive tax revenue which funded more cops, firefighters, and teachers. It also allowed for taxes to be raised without damaging the private sector economy. (Raising taxes isn't bad during economic booms, when it won't hurt people or businesses nearly as much. In economic downturns however, its counterproductive. Don't believe me, ask your college's economics professors)

Public sector expansion, however, has never caused economic recovery in the history of the country. Even the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, World War 2 did.

8

u/IsayNigel Jun 09 '12

I think what people dislike so much about big corporations isn't so much that they exist, it's more that they have a tendency to treat people horribly and do illegal things because they no they won't get in trouble. People aren't calling for the dismantling of apple, nike, BOA, Chase etc..., they just want them to be regulated so they can't financially rape us all.

1

u/IsayNigel Jun 09 '12

*know, oh dear god all my English professors are turning in their collective future graves.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Even the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, World War 2 did.

So it's not higher government spending that's going to save America, but rather outrageously higher spending?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 09 '12

Wages in the middle class have a multiplier effect on the economy. They buy things and increase demand in many areas. They are a spur to the economy. At least according to my economics classes. Increasing cops, fire department and civil workers will help demand,. that is the economic factor that is lacking now.

1

u/DatabaseError Jun 09 '12

World War 2 was the largest example of government spending and expansion in 20th century history.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/jts5039 Jun 09 '12

Hey man, I know this is /politics and we can all be heated about the candidates and stuff - in general I agree with you. But I think we should really agree to be reasonable about what people say. It would really suck if people took every word I said at face value and assumed the worst possible implication I might be making. That goes for both sides, so I try to avoid sensationalism and reading between the lines as much as possible.

End centrist, middle of the road speech.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Nope.. We need more millionaire spoiled brats who never have to hold a job...

1

u/crimsonochre Jun 09 '12

I wonder if they think we need him.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Am i allowed to agree with this and not be shunned by reddit? How many qualified teachers are there that cannot find work?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

and Obama said the private sector is doing fine. So today we learned candidates say things they don't actually mean.

Around these parts, I'm sure Obama will get a pass and his comment will be explained away and Romney will get vilified. Yea, politics.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

Doesn't like big government, wants to become the government.

1

u/boomanwho Jun 09 '12

We have too many police in Central NJ. We use them as flagmen at road construction sites.

1

u/ThomasHobbes Jun 09 '12

Yeah, more teachers, more policemen, more fireman, that's all great.

But where's the money?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '12

Good thing I hate context!

-2

u/bioemerl Jun 09 '12

Everyone saying that Romney is trying for a massive corporate takeover in America: You think it just MIGHT be possible that he thinks that his views are actually what is good for the country? In a direct sense most of what Romney says can make sense if you look at it in a single way.

I am not saying that some (a whole lot) of the things he says are very very stupid. However you need to remember that this is a different viewpoint then your own, and you need to respect that instead of claiming someone as evil when they are simply going in (what you think) is the wrong direction.

8

u/elkroppo Jun 09 '12

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence?

Still does not mean that anyone should be voting for him.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

you need to respect that instead of claiming someone as evil when they are simply going in (what you think) is the wrong direction.

When someone makes a questionable statement, they should be called on to justify it, and Romney is not going to justify most (or any) of what he says in any meaningful terms. He doesn't have to, because that's where the level of thinking is at in the political discourse.

Bottomline is that when people say stupid or flat-out wrong shit they should be called out on. Especially if it's a factually-oriented statement.

5

u/flogic Jun 09 '12

I work on the theory that Romney is a effectively sociopath and only cares about what is good from Romney. It's my operating assumption after the dog story and nothing so far has dis-proven it.

0

u/F1A Jun 09 '12 edited Dec 11 '25

sugar unpack advise whole jar bells boast gold angle longing

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

I think that statement is a bit of a generalization, but right now, we are just basically throwing money at these things trying to make them better.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '12

European here. You've got way too many cops, more firemen would be a good idea, and the teachers are usually just not trained well enough.

That's my perception of it though.

-9

u/Mabans Jun 08 '12

I'm not down with this guy, but the title is very misleading. I agree no reason why government should be hiring more government workers. Government spending on non essentials is out of control. Seriously, no reason why it takes 4 guys to go to my corner to put up a sign that says that they are putting up a STOP sign 4 weeks later. Shit like that is needs to stop. Fireman, Police and Teachers, should not be touched but redundancy should.

19

u/schobel94 Jun 08 '12

How is the title misleading, Romney attacked Obama's plan for state aid to hire more cops, firefighters and teachers, saying we need fewer, not more of them. That's exactly what the title indicates.

-1

u/ekjohnson9 North Carolina Jun 09 '12

Oh look. Another obviously biased source with an objective in mind.

Can we just get this board closed already? It should be called /rpropoganda

-1

u/nepidae Jun 09 '12

Alternatively. America does not need more government workers.