We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

[Oddball]

I'll take that to mean that you ain't got jack schitt....Like we didn't already know.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Are capable of disputing the facts in the article?

None of the right wing shitheads can. Fox tells them Obama has given us the biggest government in history from his marxist/communist/socialist policies. They don't care about the truth, only about what they want to hear.

Name one significant bureaucracy/law/rule/regulation/EO/signing statement of Chimpola that Bioking has trashed completely.

just one.

C'mon....Dazzle us with your professed love for smaller gubmint...Bring it.

Total irrelevant to the fact presented in the OP article. I'd have thought that a conservative would be happy with this fact.

 

[Dick Tuck]

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

The report is from The Hamilton Project, do you know who they are? Did you do ANY research on them?

Of course you didn't.

Actually I do. It's part of Brookings, which is about as reputable and as impartial to facts as think tanks come.

 

[Avorysuds]

Oddball hasn't found the proper talking points to respond to this fact. Give him some time.

Interesting how Government is the smallest it’s been in 36,000 years but spending is at historic highs…

 

[Oddball]

None of the right wing shitheads can. Fox tells them Obama has given us the biggest government in history from his marxist/communist/socialist policies. They don't care about the truth, only about what they want to hear.

Name one significant bureaucracy/law/rule/regulation/EO/signing statement of Chimpola that Bioking has trashed completely.

just one.

C'mon....Dazzle us with your professed love for smaller gubmint...Bring it.

Total irrelevant to the fact presented in the OP article. I'd have thought that a conservative would be happy with this fact.

You're using very select "facts" to prove your point.

Name the significant cut to any federal program, bureaucracy, etcetera....Just one.

 

[Avorysuds]

None of the right wing shitheads can. Fox tells them Obama has given us the biggest government in history from his marxist/communist/socialist policies. They don't care about the truth, only about what they want to hear.

Name one significant bureaucracy/law/rule/regulation/EO/signing statement of Chimpola that Bioking has trashed completely.

just one.

C'mon....Dazzle us with your professed love for smaller gubmint...Bring it.

Total irrelevant to the fact presented in the OP article. I'd have thought that a conservative would be happy with this fact.

I don’t think you guys understand what bloated big Government means… You seem to think it means how many people are employed, when it means how much it spends.

More or less you presented a straw man.

 

[Avorysuds]

I have a better idea for the OP then... If Government is the size it was 45 years ago, lets cut spending to what it was 45 years ago.

Deal?

 

[Avorysuds]

Name one significant bureaucracy/law/rule/regulation/EO/signing statement of Chimpola that Bioking has trashed completely.

just one.

C'mon....Dazzle us with your professed love for smaller gubmint...Bring it.

Total irrelevant to the fact presented in the OP article. I'd have thought that a conservative would be happy with this fact.

You're using very select "facts" to prove your point.

Name the significant cut to any federal program, bureaucracy, etcetera....Just one.

The OP is avoiding spending because he knows that's what every person on planet earth means when they say to cut spending and shrink Government. As long as the OP and other Obama-bots here avoid that fact they can make about how many jobs the Government provides...


So Obama managed to spend more and give us less, grats of voting for a fuckin idiot.

 

[buckeye45_73]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Ok, so you're telling me you like small government? Is that what I'm hearing?

 

[Wiseacre]

If we didn't have to spend obscene amounts of money on public union pensions and HC benefits, maybe we could afford to have more teachers, police, and firemen working. But no, we had to push through ridiculous deals that could not be paid for, and now so many cities, counties, and states are fucked.

I am reminded of a story I read backin 2009 I think, where a teachers union in Wisconsin was told by the school district they didn't have enough money to pay for a pay raise and other benefits. So they went to the union and said they could forego the pay raise or face layoffs. The union took the pay raise, hoping for a bailout from the democrats in DC. People lost their jobs.

 

[Avorysuds]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Ok, so you're telling me you like small government? Is that what I'm hearing?

It’s another Obama-bot pointing out where Obama does something they hate so if they smash it in your face that “Obama shrank Government” then it’s a “win” for them somehow. I’d credit Obama for “shrinking Government,” in this case by payroll, but he managed to vastly outspend Bush in the process. Either Obama is fucking retarded, the unions fucked us, or that a critical thinking person can conclude that “Shrinking Government” is usually identified with “cutting spending for a basic reason… That reason of course to be specific about what “Small Government” actually means.

For instance, the stimulus was considered “Big Government Spending.” How is that possible when they didn’t have to hire 400,000,000 people and add them to Government payroll? Because Spending is what determines the size of Government.

 

[Dick Tuck]

do they have a graph showing govt workers/ blue eyed people?

because that would be almost as meaningful

In what way?

it would be yet another distinction without a difference.



having the (allegedly) smallest govt per capita in 45 years means nothing.
zero. zip. the donut.

i'd be interested (but not interested enough to do the research) to see how many of the alleged lay offs were due to attrition and how many were part time temporary workers (census) that obama used to try to inflate employment numbers.

The charts include both the hiring and lay offs of census workers. There would have been 3 other hiring and layoffs during the 45 year period. Since this wasn't accomplished by any of the Republican presidents in the last 45 years, I'd say it's a pretty important fact.

How well did Reagan, Bush the First, or Dubya do on this indicator.

 

[uscitizen]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

And now we have a chart from FRED that says so--

While the private-sector is drowning under a perpetual recessionary storm, U.S. regulatory agencies are flourishing. "If the federal government’s regulatory operation were a business, it would be one of the 50 biggest in the country in terms of revenues, and the third largest in terms of employees, with more people working for it than McDonald’s, Ford, Disney and Boeing combined," writes John Merline of Investors.com.

Indeed, the federal regulatory business is thriving, and if there is one "victory" President Obama can declare, this is it, because government regulation has grown rapidly under his watch.

Regulatory agencies have seen their combined budgets grow a healthy 16% since 2008, topping $54 billion, according to the annual "Regulator's Budget," compiled by George Washington University and Washington University in St. Louis.

That's at a time when the overall economy grew a paltry 5%.

Since Obama took office, 75 new major regulations have been enacted, costing $38 billion annually, according to a study by the Heritage Foundation. "No other president has imposed as high a number or cost in a comparable time period," wrote James Gattuso, the study’s author.

The Heritage study predicts that this flood of new red tape will only intensify, as hundreds of new regulations will flow from the tentacles of ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law, and the EPA’s war on global warming.

"When you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people need to run from"--Barack Obama

And just what is a regulatory agency?
Homeland security?
INS?
FBI?
The judicial department?
Police?
DEA?
Coast Guard?
Health departments?
FDA?

 

[cutter]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Then why are we spending so f**king much money? Such a small government should need a lot less money, right? Unless maybe something is wrong with the chart.

 

[uscitizen]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Then why are we spending so f**king much money? Such a small government should need a lot less money, right? Unless maybe something is wrong with the chart.

Or the chart is correct and something is wrong with our government even if it is smaller.

 

[del]

In what way?

it would be yet another distinction without a difference.



having the (allegedly) smallest govt per capita in 45 years means nothing.
zero. zip. the donut.

i'd be interested (but not interested enough to do the research) to see how many of the alleged lay offs were due to attrition and how many were part time temporary workers (census) that obama used to try to inflate employment numbers.

The charts include both the hiring and lay offs of census workers. There would have been 3 other hiring and layoffs during the 45 year period. Since this wasn't accomplished by any of the Republican presidents in the last 45 years, I'd say it's a pretty important fact.

How well did Reagan, Bush the First, or Dubya do on this indicator.

who cares?

you wanna play silly reindeer games with numbers, knock yourself out.

just don't expect rational people to be taken in by them.

 

[Papageorgio]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Including federal and then add state and local, which we know is low because of local taxes dropping.

Federal is up, so sorry, no credit for Obama.

 

[skookerasbil]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

So how badly has this actually hurt the job market? The Hamilton folks estimate that, if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today. Now, did we have the balance right before the recession? That's for a much longer conversation. But it's certainly food for thought.

This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

You idiot.........this is a POLITICS forum. Nobody thinks that. The American voter see's the debt # and its a kick in the balls. Politically, its the only thing that is relevant.

Of course, the k00ks on here think they are going to swing the election from the outer reaches of the internet galaxy!!!

OK!!!!

 

[Avorysuds]

I’d like to take a moment and focus on this part of the OP:


“ if the share of government workers was back to 2007 levels, we'd have about 1.7 million more jobs than we do today.”

So serious question, what would spending be at if we added 1.7 million more jobs to Government? I’ll assume at 45k a year average (guess) that is about 76 billion… Meh, just add it to the massive deficit. Maybe that’s the plan, 2 months before the GE Obama will hire 1.7 million people and bring the UE number down to 6%!

 

[Avorysuds]

We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years



This is quite an interesting fact. Lowest rate in 45 years, and the right is still claiming that Obama is growing government.

Then why are we spending so f**king much money? Such a small government should need a lot less money, right? Unless maybe something is wrong with the chart.

Or the chart is correct and something is wrong with our government even if it is smaller.

Yeah, it's called spending to much... So Shrink Government by cutting spending... Like people have been saying for years upon years upon years. It's not a new talking point or something.