ConservaDerrps
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
You didn't debunk anything. Why? Because even though your chart "shows" everything, you're still choosing to cherry-pick ONLY the Federal jobs when looking at the public sector job trend. You still lose, no matter how you slice it.
Answer this question, anyone who wants to keep debating me, otherwise, I'll wait until someone does:
Did public sector jobs go up or down under Obama?
Again, I'm not engaging until you answer that question, directly. One word response required. Up or down.
They went up. it's right in the charts that actually account for federal jobs. The plot you handily omitted.
You're 100% wrong on this. I challenge your data. Why? Because my data my not have broken out the Federal jobs, but it was in there.
Here, you lying sack of shit: read this link, from a Pulitzer Prize wining media outlet, and shut the fuck up.
PolitiFact Ohio | Rob Portman says there has been a substantial increase in federal government jobs under Obama
The federal government had nearly 2.8 million employees when the stimulus passed. (The exact number, important here, is 2.795 million.) Then, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
The number grew to 3.4 million by May 2010. PolitiFact has examined that growth spurt several times and found it was because of temporary 2010 Census hiring, long-planned and independent of any White House action.
By October 2010, the number of federal workers had dropped to 2.86 million and by May 2012, the most recent most available, it was projected to be 2.819 million.
The number has dropped slowly every single month since March 2011.
You can assess this a couple of ways. The trend for more than a year has been downward, while the net number since the stimulus passed in early 2009 is up -- by 24,000.
Yet Portmans point was clear: that the proper way to grow the economy is through private sector jobs, not public sector jobs. He didnt say federal jobs have inched upward. He said they have grown "pretty substantially."
How big is substantial?
Federal employment on net has grown by less than 1 percent since the stimulus passed, BLS data and our calculator show.
His characterization of state and local government employment is correct. State employment fell from 5.188 million workers when the stimulus passed to 5.073 million in May, or by 115,000 jobs.
At the local government level, cities, towns, townships and counties dropped overall employment from 14.594 million when the stimulus passed to 14.077 million in May, a loss of 517,000 jobs.
The losses came as local and state governments cut their payrolls in response to lower tax collections -- itself a result of the weak economy.
As for federal employment, the subject of Portmans claim, it shows a net growth in the three-plus years since the stimulus passed, but that growth is modest at best, and it is now trending downward month after month. Characterizing a net increase of less than 1 percent as substantial is inaccurate.
On the Truth-O-Meter, Portmans claim rates False.
So why don't YOU stop cherry picking the data and answer the question again.
Did public sector jobs go up or down, on the WHOLE, under Obama?