"Big government" only shrunk under two presidents -- Reagan and Obama.

[Papageorgio]

Take out state and local government that has had to cut jobs because of the economy and federal jobs have risen.

This keeps getting thrown out there by the left but it is disingenuous best.

You were saying something about disingenuous?

But if you break down the numbers, you will see that federal employment has increased by just 16,000 under Mr Obama, hardly a socialist transformation (and not much of a Keynesian stimulus either). Over his two terms, George W. Bush added 37,000 federal jobs; Ronald Reagan added 197,000 federal jobs in his two. Bill Clinton lost 139,000! Federal employment is some 350,000 down from when Reagan left office.

So federal jobs have risen and if the economy was better, local and state jobs would have gone up.

Which is what I said, and you also agree.

Funny how you just can't agree, I wonder why it is?

Could you please provide a link to your breaking down the numbers? What year is this for? Because I am not finding numbers past 2010

 

[RDD_1210]

Take out state and local government that has had to cut jobs because of the economy and federal jobs have risen.

This keeps getting thrown out there by the left but it is disingenuous best.

You were saying something about disingenuous?

But if you break down the numbers, you will see that federal employment has increased by just 16,000 under Mr Obama, hardly a socialist transformation (and not much of a Keynesian stimulus either). Over his two terms, George W. Bush added 37,000 federal jobs; Ronald Reagan added 197,000 federal jobs in his two. Bill Clinton lost 139,000! Federal employment is some 350,000 down from when Reagan left office.

So federal jobs have risen and if the economy was better, local and state jobs would have gone up.

Which is what I said, and you also agree.

Funny how you just can't agree, I wonder why it is?

Could you please provide a link to your breaking down the numbers? What year is this for? Because I am not finding numbers past 2010

You know how I know that you didn't bother clicking the link in the OP?

 

[daveman]

You were saying something about disingenuous?

And how many new IRS agents is Obamacare supposed to hire?

not as many mercenaries as bush hired.

*shrug*

Interesting attempt at distraction. But it's good to see you admit Bush created more jobs than Obamacare.

 

[daveman]

And how many new IRS agents is Obamacare supposed to hire?

not as many mercenaries as bush hired.

*shrug*

So the IRS are Obama's mercenaries?

For Obamacare, they are.

 

[daveman]

You were saying something about disingenuous?

And how many new IRS agents is Obamacare supposed to hire?

How many?

Because the Obama administration hasn't grown the IRS at all.

Really?

The IRS is expected to spend $881 million on the law from 2010 through 2013, hiring more than 2,700 new workers and upgrading its computer systems. But the IRS has not made public information about its spending plans in the following years, when the bulk of the health care law takes effect.
The lack of information makes it impossible to determine whether the IRS will have adequate workers to enforce the health care law, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration said in a report three weeks ago. The report, however, concluded that "appropriate plans had been developed to implement tax-related provisions" of the law.
In 2010, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans issued a report saying the IRS may need as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees "to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans."
That assessment has been widely cited by opponents of the law. The IRS disputes the jobs number but hasn't offered another one.
"That is a made-up number with no basis in fact," IRS spokesman Dean Patterson said in an email. "The 2012 budget calls for about 1,200 employees for the IRS to implement the (Affordable Care Act), and the vast majority of those employees are needed to build technology infrastructure to support payments like the new tax credits for individuals and small businesses."​

The IRS says you're wrong.

In fact..in terms of Federal, State and Municipal employment..the workforce has been cut.

That's unlike Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Yeah, Obama himself went to Ottumwa, Iowa, and fired some municipal workers.

Obama has increased the size of the Federal government.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.​

Say Anything Obama Uses Shrink In State, Local Payrolls To Claim He's A "Small Government" President » Say Anything

So I guess Obama is talking about state and local employees which again according to CNN “have shed 635,000 positions,” but it’s a bit ludicrous for the President to take credit for reductions in state and local government. Unless he thinks he’s king of the entire country – not outside of the realm of possibility, I’ll admit – it should be the governors and legislators and local elected officials who get credit for those reductions.​

Obama sure does like to take credit for things he didn't do, doesn't he?

 

[daveman]

You were saying something about disingenuous?

And how many new IRS agents is Obamacare supposed to hire?

A little over 300 EMPLOYEES to provide information about the new provisions of the law.

Wrong.

"That is a made-up number with no basis in fact," IRS spokesman Dean Patterson said in an email. "The 2012 budget calls for about 1,200 employees for the IRS to implement the (Affordable Care Act), and the vast majority of those employees are needed to build technology infrastructure to support payments like the new tax credits for individuals and small businesses."​

And it will need even more because most of the provisions of ACA don't kick in until later.