We Now Have Our Smallest Government in 45 Years

[Harry Dresden]

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?

no....but it seemed like you were trying to give Obama and his policies the credit for this.....ok i read you wrong....

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

The scope and spending of government is bigger.. but they'll just ignore that

Just because with modern technology we don't have banks of 100's of clerical people typing on typewriters in every government building, or we have less maintenance people because things are more self sufficient, does not mean government is smaller...

But hey.. they have another myth to hang on to.. nothing new

 

[onecut39]

Oh, ******* puuuuuuuLLEEEEEASE!

Can you post any thing without throwing a funk into it? They say it is the forth most used word in a conservative's vocabulary but is it really necessary?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, ******* puuuuuuuLLEEEEEASE!

Are capable of disputing the facts in the article?

I'm capable of recognizing that the mere number of bureaucrats isn't the only measure of how bloated the federal bureaucracy is.

But then again, I'm not the one willing to walk through a lava flow to fluff the Boiking.

Keep in mind that the number of government employees includes military personnel. What his chart shows is that we've been making drastic cuts in our military readiness for the sake of welfare parasites. Alos keep in mind that his chart is unsourced. In other words, the odds are that it's total bullshit.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

The scope and spending of government is bigger.. but they'll just ignore that

Just because with modern technology we don't have banks of 100's of clerical people typing on typewriters in every government building, or we have less maintenance people because things are more self sufficient, does not mean government is smaller...

But hey.. they have another myth to hang on to.. nothing new

Yet Bush used the classic Keynesian approach to get us out of his first recession, and expanded the size government, using deficit spending. For that matter, so did Reagan.

 

[DiamondDave]

But more than 2008.

The scope and spending of government is bigger.. but they'll just ignore that

Just because with modern technology we don't have banks of 100's of clerical people typing on typewriters in every government building, or we have less maintenance people because things are more self sufficient, does not mean government is smaller...

But hey.. they have another myth to hang on to.. nothing new

Yet Bush used the classic Keynesian approach to get us out of his first recession, and expanded the size government, using deficit spending. For that matter, so did Reagan.

Did I defend Bush? Did I say I agreed with 100% of what Reagan did??

Deflection noted, and averted

 

[regent]

How about this?
Think of what Obama has done, in the midst of an economic crisis he fires people, outs them from their means of livlihood, families now going hungry, kids starving, all because Obama wants to get reelected.


Or maybe this?
Did Reagan fire people from government jobs when the going got tough, no, Reagan added people to government jobs. The difference between Reagan and Obama is clear, one is an American and the other? And what about the birth certificate? Like we forgot.

And here's an old, but tried and true one:
Another example of Obama's carrying out his communist, fascist, socialist, Marxist, feudalistic goals.

 

[lukelk]

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.

"Chimpola that bioking"?

he is a racist, shit he has a nazi ww11 plane as his sig, unless u thin nazis are a left wing group, then he is a libral but i bet he doest even know the difference

 

[Dick Tuck]

The scope and spending of government is bigger.. but they'll just ignore that

Just because with modern technology we don't have banks of 100's of clerical people typing on typewriters in every government building, or we have less maintenance people because things are more self sufficient, does not mean government is smaller...

But hey.. they have another myth to hang on to.. nothing new

Yet Bush used the classic Keynesian approach to get us out of his first recession, and expanded the size government, using deficit spending. For that matter, so did Reagan.

Did I defend Bush? Did I say I agreed with 100% of what Reagan did??

Deflection noted, and averted

Just pointing out that your technology claim, as an excuse, didn't make much sense. I find it pretty funny how many Republicans believed Reagan and Bush's supply side crap, and stick to the canard about how Reagan expanded the economy, when he was as Keynesian as they come, when it came to expanding government. Yet y'all like to think that Clinton and Obama are big spenders. How can one hold on to so many intellectual contradictions and not have their heads explode?

 

[Dick Tuck]

How about this?
Think of what Obama has done, in the midst of an economic crisis he fires people, outs them from their means of livlihood, families now going hungry, kids starving, all because Obama wants to get reelected.


Or maybe this?
Did Reagan fire people from government jobs when the going got tough, no, Reagan added people to government jobs. The difference between Reagan and Obama is clear, one is an American and the other? And what about the birth certificate? Like we forgot.

And here's an old, but tried and true one:
Another example of Obama's carrying out his communist, fascist, socialist, Marxist, feudalistic goals.

If Obama were a communist/socialist/Marxist, he would have done what many wingnuts think was the right thing, and let our financial system collapse. As for government workers, I don't see that anyone got RIFed. They just didn't replace a ton of people who quit or retired.

Now tell me how congressional Republicans pushed Obama to expand the government.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh, ******* puuuuuuuLLEEEEEASE!

Can you post any thing without throwing a funk into it? They say it is the forth most used word in a conservative's vocabulary but is it really necessary?

4th?....i heard it was the fifth.....and if you dont like cussing....go to the clean zone or the Disney board.....they are fun for the whole ******* family....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you zombie obamroids actually believe this crap

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obamaroids now worshipping the most meaningless metrics in recorded history

Shocking

 

[Dick Tuck]

Do you zombie obamroids actually believe this crap

Mitten lemming droids don't like facts.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Obamaroids now worshipping the most meaningless metrics in recorded history

Shocking

Government payroll is meaningless?

 

[DiamondDave]

Yet Bush used the classic Keynesian approach to get us out of his first recession, and expanded the size government, using deficit spending. For that matter, so did Reagan.

Did I defend Bush? Did I say I agreed with 100% of what Reagan did??

Deflection noted, and averted

Just pointing out that your technology claim, as an excuse, didn't make much sense. I find it pretty funny how many Republicans believed Reagan and Bush's supply side crap, and stick to the canard about how Reagan expanded the economy, when he was as Keynesian as they come, when it came to expanding government. Yet y'all like to think that Clinton and Obama are big spenders. How can one hold on to so many intellectual contradictions and not have their heads explode?

It makes perfect sense... and I have seen it first hand in the military AND in the private sector contracted to the government...

NOT to mention the amount of contractors that are in place now that are doing jobs that used to be directly for federal employees... the number of contracts are HUGE

Funny too, that as I have grown older and wiser about government, I have stood against expanding government and increased government spending.. EVEN WITH BUSH II.... probably one of the worst things on his record... and as bad as it was under Bush II, it is even worse now

 

[OODA_Loop]

Smallest with the most oversight.

 

[Oddball]

Smallest with the most oversight.

Right...The fewest amount of bureaucrats and federal cops, doing the most meddling, over-regulating and snooping of all time.

Some "small gubmint".

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Oh, ******* puuuuuuuLLEEEEEASE!

Are capable of disputing the facts in the article?

I'm capable of recognizing that the mere number of bureaucrats isn't the only measure of how bloated the federal bureaucracy is.

But then again, I'm not the one willing to walk through a lava flow to fluff the Boiking.

Why is it the rw loons can NEVER NEVER NEVER offer proof of their position. All they ever do is troll with insults.

If "oddball" believes the op is incorrect, then "oddball" should be able to PROVE it.

But, of course, he can't because he NEVER knows what he's talking about.