We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Sounds more like don't expect rational discussion from closed mined people who already made up their minds without facts.

 

[del]

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.

Sounds more like don't expect rational discussion from closed mined people who already made up their minds without facts.

no, it's more like i know bullshit when i reads it.

i've worked with too many sales weasels not to

i'm not *closed mined*, but i'm not doorknob level stupid, either.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Sounds more like don't expect rational discussion from closed mined people who already made up their minds without facts.

no, it's more like i know bullshit when i reads it.

i've worked with too many sales weasels not to

i'm not *closed mined*, but i'm not doorknob level stupid, either.

No, it's more like you refuse to refute or include any facts that don't agree with your preconceived notions. Yes, you are closed minded. Else you provide a refutation rather than reactionary hand waving.

 

[del]

Sounds more like don't expect rational discussion from closed mined people who already made up their minds without facts.

no, it's more like i know bullshit when i reads it.

i've worked with too many sales weasels not to

i'm not *closed mined*, but i'm not doorknob level stupid, either.

No, it's more like you refuse to refute or include any facts that don't agree with your preconceived notions. Yes, you are closed minded. Else you provide a refutation rather than reactionary hand waving.

i've not disputed that we have the "smallest government per capita"

i just don't think that it means anything.

you do.

have a party, dude.

 

[Dick Tuck]

no, it's more like i know bullshit when i reads it.

i've worked with too many sales weasels not to

i'm not *closed mined*, but i'm not doorknob level stupid, either.

No, it's more like you refuse to refute or include any facts that don't agree with your preconceived notions. Yes, you are closed minded. Else you provide a refutation rather than reactionary hand waving.

i've not disputed that we have the "smallest government per capita"

i just don't think that it means anything.

you do.

have a party, dude.

You don't know what it means? Jeez, while both Reagan and Dubya were blowing smoke up your ass, they were playing by Keynesian 101. They were spending their asses off on Federal jobs to help get us out of the recession. Obama didn't have that luxury, since the Tea Baggers jerked knees enough.

Is that reality too hard for you to understand? The facts are there. The ACTUAL size of the US Federal Workforce is lower than it was in 1985. I suspect that when the numbers are released for 2011, when we exclude the Census temps, that Obama will show a lower Federal workforce than Bush handed him in 2009.

But you certainly aren't the type to challenge your beliefs when confronted with new evidence, so don't worry, I'm not really talking to you. I'm just posting.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

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.

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

Dick....the Post Office has dropped about 300,000 thousand employees over the last few years....a big chunk of the total....and Obama has had jack shit to do with that.....

 

[del]

No, it's more like you refuse to refute or include any facts that don't agree with your preconceived notions. Yes, you are closed minded. Else you provide a refutation rather than reactionary hand waving.

i've not disputed that we have the "smallest government per capita"

i just don't think that it means anything.

you do.

have a party, dude.

You don't know what it means? Jeez, while both Reagan and Dubya were blowing smoke up your ass, they were playing by Keynesian 101. They were spending their asses off on Federal jobs to help get us out of the recession. Obama didn't have that luxury, since the Tea Baggers jerked knees enough.

Is that reality too hard for you to understand? The facts are there. The ACTUAL size of the US Federal Workforce is lower than it was in 1985. I suspect that when the numbers are released for 2011, when we exclude the Census temps, that Obama will show a lower Federal workforce than Bush handed him in 2009.

But you certainly aren't the type to challenge your beliefs when confronted with new evidence, so don't worry, I'm not really talking to you. I'm just posting.

that's not what i said. i said it means nothing.

comprehension is your friend.

you can prattle on all you want about reagan, bush, bush, van buren and nixon; it will still be a meaningless statistic.

have a nice day.

 

[Politico]

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.

I'd rather have twice as many people working who spend less.

 

[Zander]

This fat guy is your government- yeah he lost a few pounds, but he's still a fat disgusting pig...

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

Dick....the Post Office has dropped about 300,000 thousand employees over the last few years....a big chunk of the total....and Obama has had jack shit to do with that.....

So you're saying that President Obama didn't have the options that Reagan or Dubya did to use Keynesian economics to help us out of a recession? The fact still remains that there's fewer government employees than at any time in the last 45 years, and even with the Census temp hires, Obama still has lower numbers than Reagan in 1985.

 

[francoHFW]

Check who starts all the recessions, too- LOL. Pub dupes!

 

[Dick Tuck]

This fat guy is your government- yeah he lost a few pounds, but he's still a fat disgusting pig...

He's a conservative who's been feasting on Chick-Fil-A to support right wing hate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

Dick....the Post Office has dropped about 300,000 thousand employees over the last few years....a big chunk of the total....and Obama has had jack shit to do with that.....

So you're saying that President Obama didn't have the options that Reagan or Dubya did to use Keynesian economics to help us out of a recession? The fact still remains that there's fewer government employees than at any time in the last 45 years, and even with the Census temp hires, Obama still has lower numbers than Reagan in 1985.

there's fewer government employees than at any time in the last 45 years,

your saying,at least i think you are,that HE is responsible for this.....im saying that the PO is responsible for a good chunk of this and Obama is not responsible for the PO numbers.....lets say the PO is making these numbers look good for him.....

 

[Zoom]

Yep, the OP is a fact.

They really hate it when facts, actual facts are thrown in their faces.

 

[francoHFW]

Course if we'd kept those horrible gov't jobs, mainly teachers, police, and firemen, and passed a jobs bill, we might be out of this. This is a Pub economy after 3 years of obstruction- except for the stimulus (too small) and health reform, BOTH great stuff, despite the total Pubcrappe...

 

[Dick Tuck]

Dick....the Post Office has dropped about 300,000 thousand employees over the last few years....a big chunk of the total....and Obama has had jack shit to do with that.....

So you're saying that President Obama didn't have the options that Reagan or Dubya did to use Keynesian economics to help us out of a recession? The fact still remains that there's fewer government employees than at any time in the last 45 years, and even with the Census temp hires, Obama still has lower numbers than Reagan in 1985.

there's fewer government employees than at any time in the last 45 years,

your saying,at least i think you are,that HE is responsible for this.....im saying that the PO is responsible for a good chunk of this and Obama is not responsible for the PO numbers.....lets say the PO is making these numbers look good for him.....

No, I'm not saying anything other the fact that government employment is at the lowest rate in 45 years. Did you hear me say anything different than that fact?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Course if we'd kept those horrible gov't jobs, mainly teachers, police, and firemen, and passed a jobs bill, we might be out of this. This is a Pub economy after 3 years of obstruction- except for the stimulus (too small) and health reform, BOTH great stuff, despite the total Pubcrappe...

Those government jobs don't always suck so bad. In the right wing PJ O'Rourke's book, Parliament of Whores, he gives an interesting strawman. If you are an engineer, in Detroit, you might be the 3rd engineer for a rear tailight. If you work for the government, you're more likely to use your engineering skills to look at the whole car.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

But more than 2008.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

The total number of federal employess is lower today than it was in 1985 under Reagan. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0496.pdf

That pdf is also misleading, since it only goes up to 2010, and there was a small spike for temp Census workers.

But more than 2008.

Hard to say yet, since 2010 has the Census temp workers. Do you have better information? Also, 2009 is still Bush's budget.