FARK.com: (6879297) U.S. Office of Personnel Management crunches the numbers. If you're a Reagan/Bush small government conservative you're not going to like the result

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		U.S. Office of Personnel Management crunches the numbers. If you're a Reagan/Bush small government conservative you're not going to like the result (politicususa.com)		202
		More: Interesting, Office of Personnel Management, President Obama, personnel management, Ronald Reagan, The Republicans, human beings, small government, President Carter

• • •

9790 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jan 2012 at 9:29 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6879297

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

202 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

sendtodave		2012-01-15 03:10:05 PM

winterwhile: to bad he earned his money the old fashoned way

he worked for it

t3.gstatic.com

dickfreckle		2012-01-15 03:10:06 PM

CapnBlues: i like your style, dude.

Would you believe I got this whole outfit at a Burlington Coat Factory for like $46?

CrazyFark		2012-01-15 03:11:05 PM

I'm not trolling, I'm doing the same math the author did using his linked source and I think he's incorrect. Can someone check my (and their) math?
From: OPM Gov Employment (new window)

2008 --> 2692 + 64 = 2,756 thousand (2,756,000 million) at end of Bush. That's the same as his numbers.

2010 --> 2776 + 64 = 2,840 thousand (2,840,000 million) at the end of Obama's 2nd year. That's an Increase of about 3.05%

The other points are valid, but I'm surprised
- The editor didn't check the math
- The 64 comments on the main article didn't check the math
- I did a quick search here and no one checked the math.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to correction. I think the author knew because he didn't compare Obama to the end of Bush 2, but instead to prior Republican presidents. Also, it wasn't written in a simple and obvious table format but instead in a more confusing narrative.

And as prior comments stated, a measurement of total government size subtracting the government is fair, but it should include the number of direct contractors doing governmental work, not indirect, such as military contractors or road construction.

CrazyFark		2012-01-15 03:12:31 PM

Well, nuts. Farkers are smarter than the average newspaper readers. Math was checked on later pages. My error there. I apologize, buy I can't go back to edit and fix.

Bucky Katt		2012-01-15 03:12:46 PM

This is why GOPers hate math.

NotARocketScientist		2012-01-15 03:14:48 PM

starsrift: starsrift: Someone correct my math if it's wrong, please

starsrift, you tard, it's 2.84 million minus 2.756 million which is only an increase of 128,000 workers, derp derp derp. Not only that, but you couldn't figure out how to subtract the first time. Grow a brain, moran.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with the rarely seen self-troll, not observed in the wild since 2007.

And he STILL got the math wrong. 2.84 million -2.756 million = 0.084 million = 84,000.

Anti-abortion would technically be shrinking government,

How so? Regulation of what goes on between a Dr and patient requires government paperwork and government employees to read and act on that paperwork.Some states allow abortion if the girl can explain to a judge why she needs one. Is court time free in your world? No federal money goes to paying for abortions, they are all privately funded, so how does any anti-abortion legislation make for shrinking government?

It's going to get harder on the 99% and the sooner everyone realizes this the better because taking every last dime from the 1% will not solve our budgetary problems

Depending how the money is spent. The economy relies on the circulation of money. The top 1% take the money out of circulation and are thus a drag on the economy. If "every last dime" was taken from the 1% and given to the poor, they'd spend it. And the people who's businesses they spent it at would spend it again, and those business owners would spend it again, etc... So the same $1 gets spent dozens of times, and each time taxes are paid. If you take all the money and put it toward the debt, no it will not make a dent. But if you use it to stimulate the economy it can put a lot of people back to work, pay back some of the debt and make the rich, rich again.

9beers		2012-01-15 03:14:58 PM

The Department of Labor says that there are only around 2 million as of 2010, not including postal workers. This guy must be including them in his numbers so no shiat there would be less since the post office has been cutting back.

Bucky Katt		2012-01-15 03:15:40 PM

vaderstg: cool - can we do that same drill with regards to who is holding the houses of congress? You know - the people that write the budget bills and control the purse strings?

Oh.. but those results will go against your little partisan message here.

Nevermind.

so when presidents promise to veto budgets that aren't balanced but then wimp out don't count?

Rozotorical		2012-01-15 03:17:11 PM

winterwhile: Kumana Wanalaia: winterwhile: Kumana Wanalaia: winterwhile: starsrift: winterwhile: wars end

entitlements never end

get it?

Is that like how tax cuts are supposed to end but turn into "tax increases!" when the time comes?

wow

a rock is smarter than this liberal

Explain how what he said is wrong.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

I never said he was wrong, just dumb as my pet rock

as most liberals like you are

So when people say something correct you feel the need to call them dumb?

Projection, overcompensation, changing the topic.... you're a dynamo.

I do not care that they are correct

its the dumb as my pet rock "statement" you made.. a tax increase... is wellllll a tax increase
geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus, Allah, and Jehova walk into a bar,
and the bartender says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

udhq		2012-01-15 03:20:19 PM

L82DPRT:

The former now Obama bipartisan tax cuts were initially a reply to Bubba's surplus. After 9-11 they have morphed into stimulus.

Well it's time to take off the training wheels.

In reality all they have helped is the 1%.

However, taxes shouldn't be raised on anyone until there have been major cuts in federal spending.

It's going to get harder on the 99% and the sooner everyone realizes this the better because taking every last dime from the 1% will not solve our budgetary problems and I don't feel we can even grow our way out without some game changer (I'm looking at you CNG) and maybe not even then.

Yep, the fact is that whatever economic benefits we were supposed to see from those tax cuts, we got the opposite. The "job creators" took that money and used it to put a record number of people out of work.

And that's not even taking into effect the basic math of it that cutting taxes does not reduce the cost of government. All a tax cut does is give somebody an equivalent amount of free services!

I don't think things have to get harder on the 99%. I think we're due for a re-alignment of the traditional American consumerist lifestyle, but I don't think trading in our McMansions and SUVs for more modest homes, more public transportation and basic healthcare will necessarily translate into a lower quality of life.

People in this country like to piss on the Europeans, but the inarguable fact is that they live objectively better, healthier, happier lives than we do. We could learn from them if our collective national ego would let us.

crab66		2012-01-15 03:21:36 PM

L82DPRT: crab66: L82DPRT: We were on the verge of total collapse at Reagan era spending levels?

Inflation alone makes the Reagan era budget around 2 trillion.

Please come back when you understand middle school level economics.

And we'd be fine w/ spending levels from less than a decade and a trillion dollars ago.

Can't cut spending though because that would result in anarchy yet it's somehow right-wingers who are frightened.

Keep moving those goalposts brah. Go turn on Fox and get some more bullshiat talking points that you can repeat without having any grasp of what is being discussed.

NeedleGuy		2012-01-15 03:22:31 PM

LasersHurt: P.S. I know a lot of people who work in government. They make like 30k; it's not "top dollar" all the way up the chain.

Well, on the bright side they'll have yet another paid holiday off tomorrow as they recover from a bad case of Butthurt.

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 03:26:14 PM

winterwhile: I do not care that they are correct

And that's why you're a sub-intellectual walking failure.

Bucky Katt		2012-01-15 03:27:50 PM

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." -Dick.

a57.foxnews.com

Is Bush a socialist? He's spending like one
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece

Bush Administration worst fiscal disaster in US history
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66778/roger-c-altman-and-richa r d-n-haass/american-profligacy-and-american-power

Economic Damage Caused by Bush and the GOP
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2009/09/closing-the-book- o n-the-bush-legacy/26402

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 03:28:48 PM

NeedleGuy: LasersHurt: P.S. I know a lot of people who work in government. They make like 30k; it's not "top dollar" all the way up the chain.

Well, on the bright side they'll have yet another paid holiday off tomorrow as they recover from a bad case of Butthurt.

As opposed to 'skin in the game' CEOs like Mitt Romney, who never take a day off from screwing the little guy, the middle guy, and the stockholders.

Bucky Katt		2012-01-15 03:29:20 PM

A Dark Evil Omen		2012-01-15 03:33:12 PM

I do not care.........

If liberals are correct..........

They don't agree with me...............

And I know everything....best part.....forever

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 03:38:03 PM

A Dark Evil Omen:

I have a sudden urge to scrap medicare and oppose marriage equality for gays.

udhq		2012-01-15 03:46:44 PM

winterwhile:
I never said he was wrong, just dumb as my pet rock

as most liberals like you are

You know, I know you don't see a lot of examples of this in the media, but I would just like to make sure that you're aware that it is possible to be conservative without being an idiot.

A lot of people do tend to conflate the two, and a lot of conservatives I know assume they are marginalized for one when it is really for the other, but it is possible to have the beliefs you have without behaving like a petulant child all the time. I know. I've seen it happen.

A Dark Evil Omen		2012-01-15 03:50:14 PM

udhq: winterwhile:
I never said he was wrong, just dumb as my pet rock

as most liberals like you are

You know, I know you don't see a lot of examples of this in the media, but I would just like to make sure that you're aware that it is possible to be conservative without being an idiot.

A lot of people do tend to conflate the two, and a lot of conservatives I know assume they are marginalized for one when it is really for the other, but it is possible to have the beliefs you have without behaving like a petulant child all the time. I know. I've seen it happen.

The problem is that modern "conservatives" are, in fact, by and large an idiot fringe. Most intelligent conservatives have seen the right move well past them, deep into Wackyland.

jcooli09		2012-01-15 03:55:42 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: winterwhile: I do not care that they are correct

And that's why you're a sub-intellectual walking failure.

No, that's because he's a sub-intellectual walking failure.

\pet peave

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 04:00:54 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: udhq: winterwhile:
I never said he was wrong, just dumb as my pet rock

as most liberals like you are

You know, I know you don't see a lot of examples of this in the media, but I would just like to make sure that you're aware that it is possible to be conservative without being an idiot.

The problem is that modern "conservatives" are, in fact, by and large an idiot fringe. Most intelligent conservatives have seen the right move well past them, deep into Wackyland.

Yeah, but you've got to admit, the GOP pisses off the Libs. And that's more important than doing right by our nation. I mean come on, the confederacy was the only good thing that ever came out of America. I say the country can't burn fast enough, I'm sick of laws and paying taxes. No one's the boss of me, and I can shoot my gun in the theater if I want to.

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 04:05:30 PM

jcooli09: Kumana Wanalaia: winterwhile: I do not care that they are correct

And that's why you're a sub-intellectual walking failure.

No, that's because he's a sub-intellectual walking failure.

\pet peave

you're dumb

/ok you got me on that one

LasersHurt		2012-01-15 04:35:02 PM

NeedleGuy: LasersHurt: P.S. I know a lot of people who work in government. They make like 30k; it's not "top dollar" all the way up the chain.

Well, on the bright side they'll have yet another paid holiday off tomorrow as they recover from a bad case of Butthurt.

"What a bunch of spoiled rich assholes"
"Actually they're normal people of average salary."
"JEEZ be all butthurt why don't you!"

Alien Robot		2012-01-15 05:43:47 PM

Nature Spirals: TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 - 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 - 2,840,000

Headline: Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

Math is hard.

Reagan wasn't President in 1980. He took office on January 1981.

History is hard.

MisterRonbo		2012-01-15 05:47:56 PM

way south: Somacandra: way south: Comparing Obama with a more recent president destroys argument, by showing the head count hasn't changed much at all under either parties administration.

FTFA: By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

Protip: You have to be smarter than the article you're complaining about.

Just because you don't understand my argument is no reason to make a personal attack.

The increased use of machines means you need fewer people to do the work.
The workload itself also changes based on world events, natural disasters, changes in policy.
In private industry today we see more work being done by fewer people. I don't see government as being much different, except that their staff levels won't respond the same to economic challenges.

Using a headcount as justification for an argument, without putting it into context of what these people were doing and how effectively they were doing it, is misleading.
A shift of less than ten percent in a post cold war administration isn't much to write home about.

So you think the rise of the internet would mean the FBI needs fewer agehrs, and the Federal Trade Commission wouldneed fewer investigators, and the shift in commerce from intrastate to interstate would require fewer government workers to regulate and tax everything?

Those productivity gains are wonderful for business processes. But when you're catching criminals or inspecting food or trying to make sure baby cribs are safe, not so much. Take, oh, the SEC - they have the efficiency gains of computers, but the burden of computer forensics, from monitoring chat rooms to sifting through subpeonaed emails.

Serious Black		2012-01-15 05:53:04 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: I do not care.........

If liberals are correct..........

They don't agree with me...............

And I know everything....best part.....forever

Dude, you need some fentanyl to handle the pain from that derp-fest?

A Dark Evil Omen		2012-01-15 05:53:42 PM

Serious Black: A Dark Evil Omen: I do not care.........

If liberals are correct..........

They don't agree with me...............

And I know everything....best part.....forever

Dude, you need some fentanyl to handle the pain from that derp-fest?

I have a bottle of Glenfiddich 15-year on top of the fridge. It'll help me through.

Cubansaltyballs		2012-01-15 05:57:01 PM

This match is all f*cked up. Lets break this down better:

Reagan:
Year-----Civilians-------Military--------Leg/Jud----Total
1981---- 2,806,000----2,122,000----54,000-----4,982,000
1989-----3,064,000----2,168,000----60,000-----5,292,000
Total--------258,000--------46,000-----6,000-----310,000

So... during Reagan's term there were 310k more personnel. 6k of those people were in the Leg/judic branch, and 46k were in the military. For a total increase of 258k civilian employees.

Clinton:
Year-----Civilians-------Military--------Leg/Jud----Total
1993---- 2,947,000----1,744,000----66,000----4,758,000
2001-----2,640,000----1,428,000----64,000----4,132,000
Total------(308,000)----(316,000)----(2,000)----(626,000)

So... during Clinton's term there were 626k less personnel. 2k of those people were in the Leg/judic branch, and 316k were in the military. For a total loss of 308k civilian employees and 316k military personnel.

W. Bush:
2001-----2,640,000----1,428,000----64,000----4,132,000
2009-----2,774,000----1,591,000----66,000----4,430,000
Total--------134,000------163,000-----2,000-----298,000
So... during W Bush's term there were 298k more personnel. 2k of those people were added in the Leg/judic branch, and 163k were in the military. For a total gain of 134k civilian employees and 163k military personnel.

Obama:
2009-----2,774,000----1,591,000----66,000----4,430,000
2010-----2,776,000----1,602,000----64,000----4,443,000
Total-----------2,000--------11,000----(2,000)----13,000

So... during Obama's first year there were 13k more personnel. 2k of those people were lost in the Leg/judic branch, and 11k were added in the military. For a total gain of 2k civilian employees and 11k military personnel.

From this data I would say Bill Clinton shrunk the govt. While GW and Reagan dramatically increased it. Obama has barely increased it.

winterwhile		2012-01-15 06:01:10 PM

Cubansaltyballs:

So... during Clinton's term there were 626k less personnel. 2k of those people were in the Leg/judic branch, and 316k were in the military. For a total loss of 308k civilian From this data I would say Bill Clinton shrunk the govt. While GW and Reagan dramatically increased it. Obama has barely increased it.

HA HA HA HA

as the British say.... rubbish

so why again are we 15 Trillion in debt? 6 Trillion from Obama-nomics?

rev. dave		2012-01-15 06:09:54 PM

Wow! look at all the conservative butthurt... When the source of the facts cannot be argued with, just make up your own to fit the myth you believe. A lot like how evangelicals created a superstition about gay marriage, poor people, etc.. in order to disagree with it.

Mrtraveler01		2012-01-15 06:22:32 PM

winterwhile: so why again are we 15 Trillion in debt? 6 Trillion from Obama-nomics?

We're spending more than we take in?

Link

brainiac-dumdum		2012-01-15 06:38:34 PM

Eric Cantor's press secretary will not let this stand!

Kumana Wanalaia		2012-01-15 07:21:26 PM

winterwhile: so why again are we 15 Trillion in debt? 6 Trillion from Obama-nomics?

What 6 trillion from Obama-nomics?

What are you talking about?

MAKE SENSE

abb3w		2012-01-15 08:28:26 PM

Bucky Katt: "Facts are stupid things."
-St. Ronald of Reagan

...took bloody long enough for someone to throw that out.

Lenny_da_Hog		2012-01-15 09:03:24 PM

brainiac-dumdum: Eric Cantor's press secretary will not let this stand!

Jew's News: Refuse!

Crabs_Can_Polevault		2012-01-15 09:06:28 PM

Mrtraveler01: winterwhile: so why again are we 15 Trillion in debt? 6 Trillion from Obama-nomics?

We're spending more than we take in?

Link

but did winterwhile cut derping?

Saturn5		2012-01-15 09:47:52 PM

I only voted for Reagan because he wasn't Obama.

Lernaeus		2012-01-15 09:52:27 PM

Number of federal employees is a minor factor in measuring the size and scope of government.

Billions are still being wasted, trillions are committed that no one has a clue how to cover, more promises are being made and the state can't keep the ones already made, there are more laws and regulations on the books than ever, and let's not forget that the President who TFA lauds for shrinking government just signed a bill basically flushing down the toilet what few civil rights remained after Bush.

Letting go a few office clerks means fark-all given that the current and previous Administrations have done more to lay the groundwork for authoritarian rule in America than the previous three dozen Presidnts combined.

vaderstg		2012-01-15 10:18:23 PM

LasersHurt: vaderstg: cool - can we do that same drill with regards to who is holding the houses of congress? You know - the people that write the budget bills and control the purse strings?

Oh.. but those results will go against your little partisan message here.

Nevermind.

Again, hypocrisy. The president is liable for this sort of thing - unless it makes you look bad, then it's Congress?

No, my point is that both parties here are liable - not just the President. The argument the author is making is retarded - even ignoring the fact that no one has ever claimed GWB was a small-government guy. The pretense that either party is dedicated to smaller government is absurdity.

A Dark Evil Omen		2012-01-15 10:33:44 PM

vaderstg: even ignoring the fact that no one has ever claimed GWB was a small-government guy.

Oh, fark you.

LasersHurt		2012-01-15 10:55:45 PM

vaderstg: LasersHurt: vaderstg: cool - can we do that same drill with regards to who is holding the houses of congress? You know - the people that write the budget bills and control the purse strings?

Oh.. but those results will go against your little partisan message here.

Nevermind.

Again, hypocrisy. The president is liable for this sort of thing - unless it makes you look bad, then it's Congress?

No, my point is that both parties here are liable - not just the President. The argument the author is making is retarded - even ignoring the fact that no one has ever claimed GWB was a small-government guy. The pretense that either party is dedicated to smaller government is absurdity.

And yet one party crows about this all the time. It's one of their main planks in this election cycle. It's a core part of their philosophy.

This makes them hypocrites. That's my point. That's the point of this article. That's what we're all talking about here.

mltain		2012-01-16 12:10:21 AM

So the article basically says that the democrats get rid of jobs and increase unemployment.

heinekenftw		2012-01-16 12:23:29 AM

Kumana Wanalaia: winterwhile: so why again are we 15 Trillion in debt? 6 Trillion from Obama-nomics?

What 6 trillion from Obama-nomics?

What are you talking about?

MAKE SENSE

Winterwhile making sense?

Next you'll be asking oil to mix with water.

starsrift		2012-01-16 12:58:54 AM

NotARocketScientist: starsrift: starsrift: Someone correct my math if it's wrong, please

starsrift, you tard, it's 2.84 million minus 2.756 million which is only an increase of 128,000 workers, derp derp derp. Not only that, but you couldn't figure out how to subtract the first time. Grow a brain, moran.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with the rarely seen self-troll, not observed in the wild since 2007.

And he STILL got the math wrong. 2.84 million -2.756 million = 0.084 million = 84,000.

Math is hard, okay??? There's numbers and stuff. Like, thousands and millions of them! And I don't know subtraction, who does subtraction these days anyway in any meaningful context?

DrPainMD		2012-01-16 04:39:58 AM

Unless you include contractors, subsidy recipients, and the military, the number is useless.

DrPainMD		2012-01-16 04:46:44 AM

LasersHurt: starsrift: I give up.

Hey, you corrected your math, kudos. Though the point of the article wasn't "Obama has not grown the government," so much as it was "Republicans are enormous hypocrites who talk about small government and deride Obama about it daily, but have consistently grown government at every chance they got."

Of course, the article could also have said that Democrats are enormous hypocrites who talk about big government and deride Republicans about it daily, but have consistently shrunk government at every chance they got.

Fury Pilot		2012-01-16 06:08:26 AM

Have we found out winterwhile's profession yet?

machodonkeywrestler		2012-01-16 08:17:39 AM

winterwhile

You posts have devolved even further, something I didn't think was possible. The only time you answer someone's post is to insult, no counter-argument given. You're basically a childish moron with the personality of a shrew.