Shrinking government

[kallend 2,182]

What do Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have in common that Obama doesn't? Total government grew under those presidents after they faced recessions. By contrast, federal, state, and local government has declined by more than half a million workers in the last three years.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-incredible-shrinking-us-government/255519/?google_editors_picks=true

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

I have said that the Republican party is not the party of small government, it is the party that makes speeches about small government. But once they get in power, they (like the Democrats) have their own agendas to accomplish, and need more money & manpower to secure their legacies.

Actually, Republican administrations also spend MORE than Democrat ones. They have more leeway, because the mantra of "Big Government, Tax & Spend Democrats" has been repeated so often that everyone screams it when the Democrats spend money. The Republicans might spend more (but often in different areas) but they get the benefit of the doubt because after all, they are the "party of small government."

Politics is mostly illusion.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What do Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have in common that Obama doesn't? Total government grew under those presidents after they faced recessions. By contrast, federal, state, and local government has declined by more than half a million workers in the last three years.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-incredible-shrinking-us-government/255519/?google_editors_picks=true

Fed?

Not a chance

But the economy has affected state and locals so baddly that the number over all has gone down

But not fed workers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

What do Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have in common that Obama doesn't? Total government grew under those presidents after they faced recessions. By contrast, federal, state, and local government has declined by more than half a million workers in the last three years.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-incredible-shrinking-us-government/255519/?google_editors_picks=true

Fed?

Not a chance

But the economy has affected state and locals so baddly that the number over all has gone down

But not fed workers

WRONG, as usual.

Fascinating how what the GOP says is not what it does.

Carter - fed employees REDUCED by 8,000

Reagan - fed employees INCREASED by 238,000

GHW Bush - fed employees REDUCED by 30,000

Clinton - fed employees REDUCED by 380,000

GWB - fed employees INCREASED by 53,000


Right now, under Obama, there are 35,000 fewer federal employees than under Saint "small government" Ronald Reagan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

How many of those were military?

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

How many of those were military?

Military were excluded from the numbers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/2/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/?page=all

Quote

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

How many of those were military?

It appears that they need to leave out the full time civilian contractors (to the gov) to get those numbers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,602]

Frankly, that would be my definition of a federal employee -- someone who works directly for the government.

That would bring on a new discussion about whether federal contracts reflect growth in the government, but at least it's an accurate discussion.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

So you're proud of the massive amounts of unemployment that occurs under Democrats?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

So you're proud of the massive amounts of unemployment that occurs under Democrats?

If that's the best spin you can put on it, maybe you're in the wrong job.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

How many of those were military?

It appears that they need to leave out the full time civilian contractors (to the gov) to get those numbers

So you don't think government should be supportive of the private sector?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many of those were military?

It appears that they need to leave out the full time civilian contractors (to the gov) to get those numbers

So you don't think government should be supportive of the private sector?

Only you would relate taking an employee and making him a private contractor supportive.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many of those were military?

It appears that they need to leave out the full time civilian contractors (to the gov) to get those numbers

So you don't think government should be supportive of the private sector?

Only you would relate taking an employee and making him a private contractor supportive.

Why do you hate capitalism?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How many of those were military?

It appears that they need to leave out the full time civilian contractors (to the gov) to get those numbers

So you don't think government should be supportive of the private sector?

Another rendition of kallends double toe back step

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/11/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-says-government-jobs-have-fallen-half/

Quote

But the biggest declines in the government sector came in local government. Local government -- which accounts for 64 percent of all government employment -- fell by 443,000 workers, or 3 percent. That accounts for a huge portion of the half-million decrease in jobs that Krugman cited. Education workers at the local level fared worse than those at the state level. Local education workers declined by 204,800, or 2.5 percent. Non-education workers in local government fared even worse -- employment was down 238,400, or 3.7 percent.

Nice spin...

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,132]

>So you're proud of the massive amounts of unemployment that occurs under Democrats?

Fear not; Romney will fix it:

"A strong economy allows us to do a lot of good things. One, have good jobs, rising incomes, a growing middle-class. It also allows us to have the revenue from all the taxpayers who now have jobs to pay for great schools, wonderful care for our seniors, a strong military to defend us, but at the heart of these good things is a strong and vibrant economy."

Can't wait for the economy to improve so we can - spend more! And cut taxes, of course.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

So you're proud of the massive amounts of unemployment that occurs under Democrats?

If that's the best spin you can put on it, maybe you're in the wrong job.

I can do better than that. The "" was an indication of sarcasm

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/11/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-says-government-jobs-have-fallen-half/

Quote

But the biggest declines in the government sector came in local government. Local government -- which accounts for 64 percent of all government employment -- fell by 443,000 workers, or 3 percent. That accounts for a huge portion of the half-million decrease in jobs that Krugman cited. Education workers at the local level fared worse than those at the state level. Local education workers declined by 204,800, or 2.5 percent. Non-education workers in local government fared even worse -- employment was down 238,400, or 3.7 percent.

Nice spin...

The spin is all yours.



FACT is that with the exception of GHWB, GOP presidents since (and including) Reagan have presided over increases (some very big) in federal jobs, and DEM presidents since (and including) Carter haven't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

from the link in my last post... First, let’s look at federal government employment, which accounts for just 13 percent of all government employment. The number of federal workers has increased by 38,000 over the same period -- an increase of 1.4 percent. I can understand how you might mistake adding 38K to the roles would be the same as adding 'none'. Barry doesn't have control over state and local employment.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What do Republican presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have in common that Obama doesn't? Total government grew under those presidents after they faced recessions. By contrast, federal, state, and local government has declined by more than half a million workers in the last three years.

www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/the-incredible-shrinking-us-government/255519/?google_editors_picks=true

It sure looks like the writers here are trying to give Obama credit for the solutions delivered by local governments (state and city), not the Feds.

from your own article:
"Since the recession officially ended in January 2009, the economy has bid goodbye to 584,000 government jobs (private sector employment is up by 2.8 million). That's a roughly a 2 percent drop. Though the federal workforce actually grew between 2009 and 2011, it's now shrinking at the fastest rate since the 1950s, as my colleague Derek Thompson has written."

That's a huge BUT. I looked at the hyperlink to Mr. Thompson but it still seems to hide the distinction between them.

Thanks to airdrv for finding better data here.

Every President has campaigned on reducing the government, and thus far they all seemed to have left in failure on this mission.