Reply #11

In the discussion thread: Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all]

Mon Jun 11, 2012, 11:28 PM

jp11 (2,104 posts)

11. The private sector is where republicans get to pay you the least

possible offer you no benefits and you have no protection or collective bargaining. They can make suck out all the profitability while sticking the bill with the taxpayers and the end result is a lower quality service with laws and regulations that favor this private industry while leaving all the risk on the government aka the taxpayer. Simply put 'they' want to rob the taxpayers without all that pesky oversight or paying anything more than the least possible to the actual workers.

That is why the private sector is better than the public sector. Public sector is not for profit, it is about doing what needs to be done and mostly having some protections and 'rights' for workers.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

116 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why is the "private sector" better than the "public sector"? [View all]	kentuck	Jun 2012	OP
It's a matter of scapegoating and ignorance.	tblue	Jun 2012	#1
As if everyone in the private sector walks on water....	kentuck	Jun 2012	#2
I got a public sector job in 1972.....when all my friends went to college....my parents couldn't	a kennedy	Jun 2012	#9
AND most of the so-called "private sector" jobsl contract with the government and steal	nanabugg	Jun 2012	#34
Private gives much better odds for exploitative profit	TheKentuckian	Jun 2012	#3
Nailed it.	freshwest	Jun 2012	#4
It goes back to at least that idiot Reagan	Art_from_Ark	Jun 2012	#14
I concur in the opinion of TheKentuckian. nt	hifiguy	Jun 2012	#49
Ka-Ching n/t	Strelnikov_	Jun 2012	#83
You have hit on the reason that the greedy capitalists were so afraid of the Soviet Union.	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#5
The USSR collapsed because of its dynasty of brutal dictatorships.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#7
Marks and Engles both agreed that revolution sometimes has comes from the barrel of a gun	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#15
The "European moneyed familys" would that be the JOOOOOOOS??	tritsofme	Jun 2012	#65
I would expect that kind of	MnExpat	Jun 2012	#69
Give me a break.	tritsofme	Jun 2012	#82
what?	tralala	Jun 2012	#70
The Soviet Experiment might work in an ideal world.	Bake	Jun 2012	#44
You would be justified in saying that if the Soviet Union didn't last ~65 years	tralala	Jun 2012	#76
65 years is NOTHING.	Bake	Jun 2012	#77
Plus the fact they became terminal	tralala	Jun 2012	#78
The problem could have been the pesky anti-Semitic dictatorship thingy.	Zalatix	Jun 2012	#97
Perestroika was a result of their failure, not the reason for it.	joshcryer	Jun 2012	#114
Sears and Roebuck lasted longer	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#88
If private sector employees didn't first earn the money and pay taxes...	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#6
And if you didn't have a teacher to teach you how to read...	kentuck	Jun 2012	#8
I went to private schools and I have done quite well.	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#27
Corporate charters aren't created generally to benefit the public.	mmonk	Jun 2012	#32
The same is true for public sector workers. Who do you think public employee unions represent?	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#33
If the private sector can provide a service more efficiently..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#62
A great many services would be more expensive if we did that	jmowreader	Jun 2012	#101
Nobody ever got a job before there were public school teachers to teach them how to read.	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#90
I never went to public school...	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#107
If the federal government didn't first spend the money into existence..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#21
The concept of money existed before the government started printing it.	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#30
Countries without governments don't do so well.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#46
See Post No. 54	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#55
The money Americans use today..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#56
In my (non-economist) opinion money derives its value from the good and services you can buy with it	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#105
Stick to engineering.	U4ikLefty	Jun 2012	#109
Wow, you get a lot of things really wrong here.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#115
Seashells, salt, or flakes of metal found in streams	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#91
Shame on you for inserting logic into this	Puzzledtraveller	Jun 2012	#29
Customers pay private salaries - what goes around comes around.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#45
I'm assuming you're paid in dollars.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#57
The amount of dollars in circulation is based on	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#93
So you believe we don't have a government that spends money into the economy?	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#96
Just for the purpose of education..	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#98
Without the police and the courts, your private business is dead.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#51
I never said we don't need any public sector jobs	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#54
The private sector doesn't generate money.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#58
Again I return to the Defense Industry.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#68
The private sector provided the money that enabled the government to do those things	badtoworse	Jun 2012	#106
Nobody ever conducted business before there were police or courts	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#92
Yeah, we saw the results of that scenario.	U4ikLefty	Jun 2012	#110
Yes, the police and courts have sure fixed that one	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#111
When I did an assignment for the government way back when in 2004, I saw the memo	Laura PourMeADrink	Jun 2012	#10
Yes. Privatization = corruption. It's about pay-offs to buddies and campaign supporters.	JDPriestly	Jun 2012	#20
This is an important point. It's not just abstract philosophy and ideology for the privatizers.	limpyhobbler	Jun 2012	#24
absolutely...explains school vouchers - friends own private schools - more people go - more	Laura PourMeADrink	Jun 2012	#61
The private sector is where republicans get to pay you the least	jp11	Jun 2012	#11
As a proud public employee	Rain Mcloud	Jun 2012	#12
Imagine a Repub Presidency, Judiciary, Senate and House at the same time.	Zax2me	Jun 2012	#13
It's not especially in a service economy you get low paying jobs like fast food and retail with no	craigmatic	Jun 2012	#16
Because rich people can make a killing exploiting the private sector. n/t	lumberjack_jeff	Jun 2012	#17
people trumpet how "inefficient" big government is	ibegurpard	Jun 2012	#18
because the upper 20% makes money on it.	HiPointDem	Jun 2012	#19
It's a combination of hatred for paying taxes...	LeftishBrit	Jun 2012	#22
CORRECT	Skittles	Jun 2012	#23
i am sure as shit happy those firefighters keeping my happy self safe tonight are public employees	fizzgig	Jun 2012	#25
Because we are run by small town plutocracies that want to get their hands directly	Baitball Blogger	Jun 2012	#26
It is more RW bullshit	libtodeath	Jun 2012	#28
Because ideologues have kept repeating the mantra...	ljm2002	Jun 2012	#31
There is no CEO getting rich off of the public sector	tabbycat31	Jun 2012	#35
Lots of companies get government contracts and government subsidies...	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#48
The CEO of Lockheed Martin would beg to differ.	JoePhilly	Jun 2012	#52
Both are necessary	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#36
True, and what else are people ready to give up?	kentuck	Jun 2012	#37
To choose one example:	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#41
I would agree.	kentuck	Jun 2012	#43
I've encountered bat crazy libertarians who have suggested just such a thing	Nuclear Unicorn	Jun 2012	#94
I'd consider them no different than hardcore	4th law of robotics	Jun 2012	#95
The idea is that the one must pay for the other--the "public sector" is not self-supporting. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#38
I would say they are investments...	kentuck	Jun 2012	#40
I don't disagree. But the fact remains... nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#42
But the fact is not accurate.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#64
The public sector is funded with tax revenue. It's not controversial. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#67
This is not true at the federal level.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#80
The banks are not self-supporting. Public money bailed them out.	CJCRANE	Jun 2012	#50
Private sector would have no dollars without public sector.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#63
I don't disagree (at all). The point STILL remains: the "public sector" requires tax revenue to	Romulox	Jun 2012	#66
You've set it up as if the two sectors are in competition for money.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#75
No, I did not. I won't argue points only YOU have made. nt	Romulox	Jun 2012	#86
Or using gold backed paper.	dkf	Jun 2012	#112
Yup	tralala	Jun 2012	#72
It seems to me that the teaching profession is supporting the entire structure of civilization	aint_no_life_nowhere	Jun 2012	#103
Because ...	ananda	Jun 2012	#39
The argument that private enterprise is less bureaucratic is absolutely ludicrous.	randome	Jun 2012	#47
too true	ThomThom	Jun 2012	#53
He is targeting the wrong "Public Sector" Overpaid Congressmen and Senators is where the fat needs	Tuesday Afternoon	Jun 2012	#59
Both sectors do some things better than the other	Hippo_Tron	Jun 2012	#60
If the public sector doesn't include nationalized industries	tralala	Jun 2012	#71
If "the public sector is "sponging" off of the value produced by the private sector..."	kentuck	Jun 2012	#73
The government pays people to provide services and/or create goods.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#79
The government pays for its services/employees out of	tralala	Jun 2012	#81
This is an incomplete view of the role of the government in a modern economy.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#84
If divide & conquer didn't work, politicians and corporations wouldn't use it. nt	shcrane71	Jun 2012	#74
There's a good book called "The Gardens of Democracy"	gulliver	Jun 2012	#85
Well, without a private sector, the public sector could not exist	IndyPragmatist123	Jun 2012	#87
Tax revenue doesn't fund spending at the federal level.	girl gone mad	Jun 2012	#104
I guess I must have not paid attention during my 6 years of economics studies	IndyPragmatist123	Jun 2012	#116
It's not better. It's much bigger and much more important to the economy in terms of job creation.	slackmaster	Jun 2012	#89
If you want people beholden to you	Aerows	Jun 2012	#99
BIGGER and EASIER BRIBES for politicians	ProgressiveEconomist	Jun 2012	#100
Because Reagan said it...and Clinton said it...and it's what is WINNING in Political America.	KoKo	Jun 2012	#102
I've worked in both...	TroglodyteScholar	Jun 2012	#108
I don't think that it is, necessarily. But you can regulate out cronyism from the private sector.	joshcryer	Jun 2012	#113

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.