Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
firedude

Teachers & First Responders Back to Work Act

19 posts in this topic

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democratic leaders have settled on which piece of President Barack Obama's jobs plan they want to move on first: $35 billion for state and local governments to rehire teachers, police and firefighters.

Full Huffington Post Article

Bloomberg Article

Thoughts?

Edited by firedude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Seems like it's a part that they can't lose over, after all who'd argue against rehire, teachers, police and firefighters. Just more pawns in this political game.

The whole jobs bills irks me some as all the proposed jobs are taxpayer funded. In the end, more people will be working, and those of us working will pay more taxes to fund those jobs, another win-no win situation. We need something to get private employers to rehire workers or fund new jobs, not ones we'll pay for directly.

Police, fire, EMS and teachers are local employees that should be funded at the lowest level. It makes little sense for me to pay toward firemen's salaries in CA, while CA residents pay for salaries in NY, and you pay for salaries up my way. In the meantime, we have to pay taxes to fund these federal dollars, and when we do, they skim some off the top in the name of program implementation then redirect the rest to the jobs.

helicopper and SageVigiles like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am against the federal government bailing out local governments. Especially when the federal government is borrowing money to do so. The local governments need to learn how to balance a budget. Everyone who works for the government knows where there is a waste of resources. The economy will force the government to get rid of the waste (which includes duplication of services) and save the tax payers some money.

SageVigiles and 99subi like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just did this in the form of the last stimulus programs- It doesn't work- money goes from the Feds to the local gov'ts who hire people into these jobs- after the fed money is dried up the local taxpayer is left holding the bag for the salaries and benefits- just kicks the can down the road.

SageVigiles and ny10570 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spending our way to prosperity. Wish I could do that. Instead, I have to live with what I make.

SageVigiles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats at best need 7 republicans to cross party lines to break a filibuster. In the grand scheme of things a 50-50 vote is not really close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell some of those things to guys who are losing someone off the back step...or struggling to maintain safe staffing levels. I'd rather have my tax dollars go to that then Banks, Bangledesh, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, Ethiopa and the plethra of other countries we give aid to. Not for nothing..but I'd rather have my kid is a 20 kid classroom then a 35 to 40. And oh by the way...what we were doing...hasn't worked...not with Bush..or Obama up to this point. We bailed out the automotive industry...and wah..so the funding dries up...if your local officials had brains they would be able to work with that which is the way it should be...eased into the system...to OMG...better services..what a travesty. Pick up the phone and call 911 or have your kid test scores drop..and I bet some of you would be on the phone crying to someone with that too. Keep watching CNN and Fox news...I am quite saddened it took me this long to start looking into different sources to find out things in a non slanted way.

prucha25 and efdcapt115 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem telling them that kicking the can down the road will not solve the problem. Look what happened the last time Obama did this. The second the federal money was spent the same police officers firefighters and teachers were laid off.

SageVigiles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for stimulus spending, but I don't believe that this will work. As others have pointed out, once the cash dries up we're back to square one. Spending money on infrastructure and public works is the way to go. It creates jobs immediately and gets manufacturers and other private industry involved. More jobs and more manufacturing will feed cash into the local governments where they can continue to misappropriate it at their leisure. I'm not buying into right wing trickle down bullshit. Giving cash to corporate entities only serves to strengthen their financials. They hire when they have more product to produce and need more people.

SageVigiles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I want to see as many PD's, FD's and schools ensure proper staffing, as I said, federal funding really isn't the way to go. As a short term solution it will accomplish strengthening those positions, but at the taxpayers expense. The same taxpayers who can't afford to have proper staffing at their local FD, will be paying for it from their other pocket, and those who will see no specific hires in their locality will pay more to strengthen other places, yet furthering their local financial burden. We don't have a national fire service or fund our local police through federal monies, so we shouldn't look to the rest of the country to solve our local issues.

I can tell you none of this comes from FOX or CNN just common sense really. Every time a they spend a dollar in DC, it cost the taxpayers $1.25 to implement (not real figures) as it takes bureaucratic offices to process taxes, grant applications, follow-up, etc. The shorter the line between the taxpayers wallet and the project being funded, the less implementation costs, the less earmarks, the less lobbyists.

As for government infrastructure projects (roads/bridges)? Hell yes they need to be done, but to call that a Jobs Bill? Who do you think pays for those projects? So we're creating jobs, at the expense of taxpayers, of course it is a smarter solution than welfare as we get something in return and those projects need to be done. But let's not call it a Jobs Bill, how about calling it the federal government spending on federally mandated projects?

I also am not convinced tax breaks for corporations or the wealthy will work, as they already get them ad look where we are. But we need to find a way to stimulate private businesses into hiring employees that we don't fund out of our taxes.

Edited by antiquefirelt
SageVigiles and 99subi like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note they did not spend all of the money from the second stimulus bill. Those shovel ready jobs are still not ready.

The local governments have to learn how to budget themselves and set priorities. For example NYC, the mayor is spending millions of dollars on bike lanes, bike racks and city benches. They also renamed a few bridges. Then in the same news conference he is telling the city's emergency services that their budgets are going to be cut. If you ask any citizen would they rather have a teacher, FF, medic, police officer or a bike lane, bike racks , city benches. You know what the majority of the people will say. To give a local government like this federal money only makes the situation worse.

Edited by nycmedic
99subi and antiquefirelt like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
During a conference call, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he plans to unveil the Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act later Monday and decide "in the next day or two" when to hold a vote on it. He said the bill would keep 400,000 teachers and first responders on the job, and would be paid for by imposing a 5 percent tax on millionaires.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/teacher-aid-obamas-jobs-plan_n_1015854.html

Maybe you guys who are claiming how the funding for this part of the jobs bill would have been paid for out of all our pockets missed this detail.

I cannot remember any other programs that ever helped fire departments other than AFG and SAFER. The AFG's that we got were instrumental in solving some serious health and safety issues my job had. The guys that hook up the exhaust systems to the rigs now before they back them into the firehouse probably take it for granted that they don't have diesel particulate matter on their plates and glasses in the kitchen. They might not have worked with the guys we lost due to strange and rare liver cancers.

SAFER has been key in rehiring laid off Westchester firefighters. Yes, it's temporary, but you know what? I'd take the two years of temporary while the municipality tries to get it's act together to keep the positions after the grant expires, instead of two years on the bread line.

I'm not sure how this part of the jobs bill interfaces with SAFER, if at all. If it is the entire SAFER funding that just got voted down the tubes thanks to the millionaire protecting Republicans and a few cross-over traitors of working people like Joe Lieberman, well shame on them!

gamewell45 and 791075 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/teacher-aid-obamas-jobs-plan_n_1015854.html

Maybe you guys who are claiming how the funding for this part of the jobs bill would have been paid for out of all our pockets missed this detail.

I cannot remember any other programs that ever helped fire departments other than AFG and SAFER. The AFG's that we got were instrumental in solving some serious health and safety issues my job had. The guys that hook up the exhaust systems to the rigs now before they back them into the firehouse probably take it for granted that they don't have diesel particulate matter on their plates and glasses in the kitchen. They might not have worked with the guys we lost due to strange and rare liver cancers.

SAFER has been key in rehiring laid off Westchester firefighters. Yes, it's temporary, but you know what? I'd take the two years of temporary while the municipality tries to get it's act together to keep the positions after the grant expires, instead of two years on the bread line.

I'm not sure how this part of the jobs bill interfaces with SAFER, if at all. If it is the entire SAFER funding that just got voted down the tubes thanks to the millionaire protecting Republicans and a few cross-over traitors of working people like Joe Lieberman, well shame on them!

Watch for that to be one of the first concessions. The Republicans won't let that provision stand, and the rich Dems, will be all too happy to "suffer the loss" and place the blame, but still sigh with some relief of their own. Either way these things are taxpayer funded, though I'd agree those may be the taxpayers who should pay a bit more of their fair share. Still, in the end, people in Juno AK shouldn't have to put firefighters on the street in Camden NJ, while those in Camden pay for firefighters in Bangor ME. Ect, etc, etc, ad nauseum, it's a flawed system that shuffles money around the country through tax mandates. By the time one dollar leaves Juno and arrives in Camden, I'll bet it's far less than it's original value, programs cost money. Dollar for dollar spending is at it's best when the dollars don't travel far.
ny10570 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch for that to be one of the first concessions. The Republicans won't let that provision stand, and the rich Dems, will be all too happy to "suffer the loss" and place the blame, but still sigh with some relief of their own. Either way these things are taxpayer funded, though I'd agree those may be the taxpayers who should pay a bit more of their fair share. Still, in the end, people in Juno AK shouldn't have to put firefighters on the street in Camden NJ, while those in Camden pay for firefighters in Bangor ME. Ect, etc, etc, ad nauseum, it's a flawed system that shuffles money around the country through tax mandates. By the time one dollar leaves Juno and arrives in Camden, I'll bet it's far less than it's original value, programs cost money. Dollar for dollar spending is at it's best when the dollars don't travel far.

AFG and SAFER are not tax mandates. Started under the Bush administration, these programs have to get continual Congressional approval every year to be continued. I don't get your point that money from Juno winds up in Camden. All of the tax dollars wind up in D.C. and get appropriated from there.

I like what Ron Paul has to say about our foreign policy, so I'll steal a few of his ideas for this post. Why do we continue to maintain tens of thousands of troops in places like Germany and South Korea? Both of those countries are currently operating "in the black". They aren't running deficits. Why are we subsidizing their national defense, when we desperately need our money for domestic programs? Why is the discussion about the national debt focused on money being spent right here at home and how we can't afford to help ourselves in these tough times?

Screw the rest of the globe, let them pay for their own defense. Why does the Federal government continue to turn a blind eye on the overseas programs costing us hundreds of billions, and the conservatives constantly talk about slashing domestic programs?

Lets start getting our financial house in order by telling the world we are no longer going to bury ourselves in debt to subsidize some of the healthier economies in the world. Let THEM (the Germans, the South Koreans, the Indians, the Pakistani's et al) pay their own way.

How much is it costing the United States to ensure safe passage through the Persian Gulf for ALL the world's countries oil shipments? If we're going to continue these "world defense" programs, it's time to say "SCREW YOU PAY ME." Let the world's stronger economies start paying their fair share; you want our troops in there to guard your borders, while we have to borrow money from China, so you can safely produce cheap vehicles and sell them to the U.S.? Your economy prospers, while ours sputters, and we're paying for your protection? "SCREW YOU PAY ME." Either that, or close the bases, bring the troops home, and let them do something productive here, like guard OUR borders. Shrink the military-industrial complex. That's a major reason why we're going bankrupt. Eisenhower warned about it, but it has fallen on deaf ears and blind eyes. Why would NBC News do an expose on runaway military contractor costs, when they are owned by General Electric (which paid NO corporate tax last year) that does major contract work for the military?

I mean if the Congress wasn't so bought and paid for by lobbyists with foreign and corporate interests, maybe some of these injustices being perpetrated on the American people would be addressed. OUR Congress is OWNED by foreign interests, and in the meantime we fight amongst ourselves, because the media keeps most peoples' minds right where the Cabal running Washington wants them.

Watch a Republican debate. Watch how the corporate news agencies that run the debates go out of their way to downplay what Ron Paul has to say. He continually wins or places high in straw polls across the country. Yet, because his ideas about foreign and corporate policy, his ideas about the FED, threaten the corporate owners of the news agencies, they will ensure Ron Paul is minimized, and ridiculed.

Alexander Hamilton ABOLISHED the "national bank" in his time, yet in 1913 the banksters gathered on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia, and created the Federal Reserve Bank, a private entity that controls our monetary policy. Take a poll of American people and see how many know the FED is a PRIVATE business. One that creates bubbles in the economy that benefit the banks, then deflates the economy which benefits the banks. Banks profit from war. Read about the Rothsteins of France. Read how they manipulated Europe through the twentieth century; created World Wars that countries paid for with blood of soldiers and borrowed money from banks.

In 2008 the banks created an economic crisis that we're going to suffer from the ongoing effects for decades. The banks received hundreds of billions of tax dollars. Instead of working people in America being united, and knowing who the common enemy of this country is; the banks, the corporations, the war machine, and foreign interests; the corporate controlled media has succeeded in pitting Americans against themselves; private employees vs. public employees. Union workers vs. non union workers. White collar vs blue collar. American vs. American. Just the way they want it; the Federal Reserve, the banks, the corporations, and the foreign interests.

It's time all Americans unite, kick out incumbent politicians, get the money out of elections. A long process for sure, but in the meantime let's stop fighting each other on the homefront. America First!

antiquefirelt and ny10570 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFG and SAFER are both great programs. I'd rather see more money pumped into them than the creation of more programs with more bureaucracy and more headaches.

efdcapt115 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFG and SAFER are not tax mandates. Started under the Bush administration, these programs have to get continual Congressional approval every year to be continued. I don't get your point that money from Juno winds up in Camden. All of the tax dollars wind up in D.C. and get appropriated from there.

While they are not specific tax mandates, it is through taxes and our Federal budget that the money is taken, so in a sense, they are tax mandates. The point is if any program (AFG and SAFER being low cost ones actually) requires federal funding, the budget increases to accommodate those costs and taxes are raised (even if very slightly in the grand scheme). There for when all the taxpayers of pay a little more their money goes to DC to be reallocated to my example Camden, NJ, Bangor,ME, and even here in Rockland. So, sometimes your local money leaves and returns (likely a larger sum, but possibly less). With no AFG or SAFER, that small amount of tax money wouldn't be needed, local taxpayers would pay that fraction less and the local FD with needs would ask for their own budget to cover them.

The real issue isn't AFG or SAFER, but all the programs across all types of employment that use similar funding. We firefighters don't own a lock on being passionate about our fair share of federal funding for what we see as essential equipment and personnel, the law enforcement community has far greater sums of federal dollars that I'm certain they feel strongly need to remain funded, as do school teachers, mid-West farmers, colleges, alternative energy people, etc. We're no different than any of them, do we think they'll agree to take cuts to let us have what we say we need? If we can't convince them to fund us locally, how will we nationally, unless we use these types of programs, as they do the same.

As for the rest of your post, I'm squarely on-board.

efdcapt115 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note they did not spend all of the money from the second stimulus bill. Those shovel ready jobs are still not ready.

The local governments have to learn how to budget themselves and set priorities. For example NYC, the mayor is spending millions of dollars on bike lanes, bike racks and city benches. They also renamed a few bridges. Then in the same news conference he is telling the city's emergency services that their budgets are going to be cut. If you ask any citizen would they rather have a teacher, FF, medic, police officer or a bike lane, bike racks , city benches. You know what the majority of the people will say. To give a local government like this federal money only makes the situation worse.

Really? Feel the pulse of the people today and they look at FF's, PO's, EMS and teachers as one of the biggest of their tax woes. Compliments of corporate america and network news lambasting our supposed lucrative salaries and retirement systems and how they don't match up with the civilian sector. Well the last time I checked many of those civilian sector jobs don't match up with what we do and often most walk out with better overall packages. The goverment had to up salaries on jobs because they often couldn't keep talented individuals because the salaries weren't competitive.

The whole point is if the money dries up...its on you to make sure your local government is doing what they must to keep those people on the street. Its not the federal governments job to keep it staffed all the time...but they the bigger picture is its not going to help the economy or stock market when the unemployment rate jacks up and kills the job creation numbers when there are a bunch of cops, firemen and teachers flooding the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.