Home› A Moving Train

Harry Reid thinks the private sector is doing alright

Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
edited October 2011 in A Moving Train
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Private sector jobs are doing just fine." Uh, since when is 9.1% unemployment "just fine?" Maybe I'm just a half-empty guy and should look at it as 90.9% employment.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Private sector jobs are doing just fine." Uh, since when is 9.1% unemployment "just fine?" Maybe I'm just a half-empty guy and should look at it as 90.9% employment.


    It probably is in Nevada. I could be wrong... I'm not from Nevada. You have to understand that Senators are pretty keen on representing their state.
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    Actually, the unemployment rate in Nevada is above the national average. It went up to 13.4% in August and remained there in September. No matter how he wants to slice it, that's not good.

    http://detr.state.nv.us/Press/UI_Rate_R ... elease.pdf
    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/oc ... a-jobless/

    He seems to think that the public sector jobs are the only ones being lost and is blaming layoffs happening now on Bush. I guess I see his point. I mean Obama's only been in office 33 months and everyone knows the last 15 months of a President's term are when things get done.

    I'm astonished that the Republicans in Nevada couldn't find a decent candidate to keep this guy from getting re-elected. I'm more astonished that the other Democrats in the Senate thought he'd be a good choice for Majority Leader.
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    Monster Rain wrote:
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Private sector jobs are doing just fine." Uh, since when is 9.1% unemployment "just fine?" Maybe I'm just a half-empty guy and should look at it as 90.9% employment.


    It probably is in Nevada. I could be wrong... I'm not from Nevada. You have to understand that Senators are pretty keen on representing their state.
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    I'm astonished that the Republicans in Nevada couldn't find a decent candidate to keep this guy from getting re-elected. I'm more astonished that the other Democrats in the Senate thought he'd be a good choice for Majority Leader.



    It's not that astonishing. Reid is a powerhouse in the Senate.
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    See, that's what's astonishing to me. I saw a figure that said exit polls on Election Day showed that 54% of the voters disapproved of the job Reid had done. That would normally be a politician who loses the election but 12% of the people who disapproved of him voted for him anyway because Angle wasn't able to appear to be the better choice.
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    I'm astonished that the Republicans in Nevada couldn't find a decent candidate to keep this guy from getting re-elected. I'm more astonished that the other Democrats in the Senate thought he'd be a good choice for Majority Leader.



    It's not that astonishing. Reid is a powerhouse in the Senate.
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    Monster Rain wrote:
    See, that's what's astonishing to me. I saw a figure that said exit polls on Election Day showed that 54% of the voters disapproved of the job Reid had done. That would normally be a politician who loses the election but 12% of the people who disapproved of him voted for him anyway because Angle wasn't able to appear to be the better choice.
    peacefrompaul wrote:
    I'm astonished that the Republicans in Nevada couldn't find a decent candidate to keep this guy from getting re-elected. I'm more astonished that the other Democrats in the Senate thought he'd be a good choice for Majority Leader.



    It's not that astonishing. Reid is a powerhouse in the Senate.


    That's true. He also didn't have the funding that Reid does. It's pretty damn hard to get people out of the Senate.
  • mookieb10mookieb10 Posts: 930
    In what context did he say this? Compared to last year, 2 years ago, other nations, 1950?
  • peacefrompaulpeacefrompaul Posts: 25,293
    mookieb10 wrote:
    In what context did he say this? Compared to last year, 2 years ago, other nations, 1950?


    Exactly.
  • Monster RainMonster Rain Posts: 1,415
    He's saying that the job loss contributing to the high unemployment rate is due to the lack of jobs in the public sector, not the private sector. He didn't compare it to any other point in time. It's hard to believe that, though, when you see Bank of America announcing plans to cut 30,000 jobs over the next few years, Wells Fargo is cutting 1,900 jobs, Xerox cut 4,500 jobs from January through June (ironically, their CEO is on the Jobs Creation panel Obama has asked to advise him--one of several executives on the panel whose companies are laying off workers despite increased profits), etc. I'm sure there are also some states and towns that are cutting staff, but there have been a whole bunch of companies announcing layoffs recently, so it's pretty foolish to say that the private sector is not part of the problem when it comes to jobs lost.
    mookieb10 wrote:
    In what context did he say this? Compared to last year, 2 years ago, other nations, 1950?
Sign In or Register to comment.