Clearly reality has a liberal bias.

OBAMA IS KILLING JOBS!

/or something

You must have missed the new meme that is coming off of FOX News that I heard last night. They are now blaming Obama for the job losses in the government. So you could say that are offhandedly admitting that he's shrunk the government.

Oh and you guys notice how when it comes to the latinos the Republican ads don't use the names GOP or Republican anymore? They only use the word conservative. There's an article out there about how the latinos respond positively to the word conservative but negatively to GOP and Republican. Would be a pity if Romney was only called conservative from here on out.

Reagan/Bush small government conservative

No such thing. Bullshiat narrative.

Oh. that's what the article says.

If you're a Reagan/Bush small government conservative... you're completely full of shiat as your party has backed the most intrusive big government policy imaginable (drug testing, anti-abortion, anti-gay, SOPA, etc, etc ).

FTFA: Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
...
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 - 2,840,000

Someone correct my math if it's wrong, please, but 2.84 million minus 2.703 million results in a growth of 137 thousand employees under Obama's administration, more than double Bush's increase.

That would seem to undermine TFA's argument that Obama is not a "big government liberal".

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.

starsrift: That would seem to undermine TFA's argument that Obama is not a "big government liberal".

First of all, you're using the number from the START of Bush's term. So off on a bad foot there.

I give up.

Bob16: If you're a Reagan/Bush small government conservative... you're completely full of shiat as your party has backed the most intrusive big government policy imaginable (drug testing, anti-abortion, anti-gay, SOPA, etc, etc ).

Nah

That's a government small enough to fit in the bedroom.

Where they can catch you taking meth while looking at copyrighted gay porn and having sex with a girl who you know will get an abortion.

So, we only have 2,400,000 people we have to pay top dollar, until they die, as compared to 2,400,000 we have to pay top dollar, until they die.


..I feel so much better.

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."

Don't write an article like this and completely avoid mentioning that there are 84,000 more federal employees under Obama now than when he started. Comparing beginning of presidency vs. end in all cases except the one case that doesn't support your assertion is dishonest and will be seized upon by the people you disagree with (those, presumably, you'd most like to reach) to invalidate your entire argument. Acknowledge the data and anticipate the objections if you're looking to change anyone's mind.

From the initial chart referenced:

Notes:

Data comes from agency 113 monthly submissions and covers total end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time, and intermittent employees. Executive branch includes the Postal Service, and, beginning in 1970, includes various disadvantaged youth and worker-trainee programs. Uniformed Military Personnel data comes from the Department of Defense.

This PDF has a more in-depth table (Table 17.1): Historical Tables -- Budget of the U.S. Government.

At the end of 1988, Reagan has 1,102,000 in FTE Employment, excluding Defense and the Post Office. The 2010 estimate in FTE Employment is 1,411,00.

On the other hand, the number of current postal employees I see is 574,000, and (1.411 + .574 = 1.985) million, rather than the 2.776 million mentioned. I don't know where the 800K employee discrepancy comes in.

( I am not arguing one President is a better small-government President than another -- frankly, there is no reason IMO not to include the military numbers on the list, but if you are going to exclude them, why not the Post Office, since it is "off budget"?)

I meant to say 2,850,000, in the first number

HoodCrowd: So, we only have 2,400,000 people we have to pay top dollar, until they die, as compared to 2,400,000 we have to pay top dollar, until they die.


..I feel so much better.

If you don't want a functional first-world government I'm sure there are options available to you.

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.

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.

gilgamesh23: Don't write an article like this and completely avoid mentioning that there are 84,000 more federal employees under Obama now than when he started. Comparing beginning of presidency vs. end in all cases except the one case that doesn't support your assertion is dishonest and will be seized upon by the people you disagree with (those, presumably, you'd most like to reach) to invalidate your entire argument. Acknowledge the data and anticipate the objections if you're looking to change anyone's mind.

Obama doesn't claim to be a small government conservative, or the party of small government. The article wasn't about raw numbers, it was about flagrant hypocrisy.

As far as I can tell, those numbers don't include contractors. If they don't include contractors, they're a bunch of nonsense. Attempting to use them to prove anything about anything is utterly futile.

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?

starsrift: FTFA: Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
...
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 - 2,840,000

Someone correct my math if it's wrong, please, but 2.84 million minus 2.703 million results in a growth of 137 thousand employees under Obama's administration, more than double Bush's increase.

That would seem to undermine TFA's argument that Obama is not a "big government liberal".

Your basic point stands, but the difference is actually 84,000 employees. You were using the START of Bush's term as the baseline, not the end as you should have.

deadcrickets: You must have missed the new meme that is coming off of FOX News that I heard last night. They are now blaming Obama for the job losses in the government. So you could say that are offhandedly admitting that he's shrunk the government.

That's Fair and Balanced.

and that tiny amount has ten times the power they did under Reagan.
You have considerably less rights as well.

August 24, 2011

Blargh, I probably argued about this months ago.

LasersHurt: Obama doesn't claim to be a small government conservative, or the party of small government. The article wasn't about raw numbers, it was about flagrant hypocrisy.

Sure, but that's not the point I'm making. The point is that anyone who is predisposed to disagree with the argument can easily flush the whole thing based on a distortion like this. You need to make it harder if you want people to question their presumptions.

gilgamesh23: LasersHurt: Obama doesn't claim to be a small government conservative, or the party of small government. The article wasn't about raw numbers, it was about flagrant hypocrisy.

Sure, but that's not the point I'm making. The point is that anyone who is predisposed to disagree with the argument can easily flush the whole thing based on a distortion like this. You need to make it harder if you want people to question their presumptions.

There wasn't any distortion. Here's my evidence: based on what was presented, we're all perfectly aware there are more employees currently.

And the ability to flush an entire argument based on one piece of insufficiently-emphasized fact is not a function of the argument, but a function of the person reading it who WANTS to dismiss it all.

deadcrickets: You must have missed the new meme that is coming off of FOX News that I heard last night. They are now blaming Obama for the job losses in the government. So you could say that are offhandedly admitting that he's shrunk the government.

The lack of cognitive dissonance at that channel astounds me.

When they talked about a smaller government, were they really stupid enough to think that jobs wouldn't be cut as well or are they just dishonest hacks?

Or am I being redundant?

Mrtraveler01: deadcrickets: You must have missed the new meme that is coming off of FOX News that I heard last night. They are now blaming Obama for the job losses in the government. So you could say that are offhandedly admitting that he's shrunk the government.

The lack of cognitive dissonance at that channel astounds me.

When they talked about a smaller government, were they really stupid enough to think that jobs wouldn't be cut as well or are they just dishonest hacks?

Or am I being redundant?

The channel does not lack cognitive dissonance. It's viewers do, and they know that. The viewers are stupid enough to think jobs won't be cut, Fox News is dishonest enough to feed them what they want to hear.

heinekenftw: Mrtraveler01: deadcrickets: You must have missed the new meme that is coming off of FOX News that I heard last night. They are now blaming Obama for the job losses in the government. So you could say that are offhandedly admitting that he's shrunk the government.

The lack of cognitive dissonance at that channel astounds me.

When they talked about a smaller government, were they really stupid enough to think that jobs wouldn't be cut as well or are they just dishonest hacks?

Or am I being redundant?

The channel does not lack cognitive dissonance. It's viewers do, and they know that. The viewers are stupid enough to think jobs won't be cut, Fox News is dishonest enough to feed them what they want to hear.

Makes sense, since their viewers are considered sheep in Fox's eyes.

I wonder how many of those employees were politically necessitated and how many were replaced by the increased use of computers and automation.
Comparing Obama with a more recent president destroys argument, by showing the head count hasn't changed much at all under either parties administration.

/Also, the fear of big government has more to do with the invasiveness of policies into peoples lives than the physical size of the government.
/The real question is if we are getting our dollars worth without being bureaucrated to death by the red tape.

way south: I wonder how many of those employees were politically necessitated and how many were replaced by the increased use of computers and automation.
Comparing Obama with a more recent president destroys argument, by showing the head count hasn't changed much at all under either parties administration.

/Also, the fear of big government has more to do with the invasiveness of policies into peoples lives than the physical size of the government.
/The real question is if we are getting our dollars worth without being bureaucrated to death by the red tape.

If only we had a president who is attempting to reduce headcount and beaurocracy, and who didn't support invasive legislation on marriage or women's rights.

Oh, wait.

way south: I wonder how many of those employees were politically necessitated and how many were replaced by the increased use of computers and automation.
Comparing Obama with a more recent president destroys argument, by showing the head count hasn't changed much at all under either parties administration.

Actually it shrank during the terms of Bush I and Clinton and grew again under Bush:

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

I wouldn't worry too much "Reagan/Bush small government conservative" think, since no such thing exists. That's like worrying what dragons think about too much commercial air traffic.

LasersHurt: There wasn't any distortion. Here's my evidence: based on what was presented, we're all perfectly aware there are more employees currently.

And the ability to flush an entire argument based on one piece of insufficiently-emphasized fact is not a function of the argument, but a function of the person reading it who WANTS to dismiss it all.

Yes it is. But that's just how people are. When trying to change people's minds, it needs to be acknowledged that most people will be biased toward acceptance of arguments that support their worldview, and will seize upon any contradiction or distortion to discard contrary opinion.

By "smaller government" conservatives normally just mean small enough to shove up your ass during a drug bust.

Your blog sucks!

Let's have some follow-up analysis after the ranks are reduced due to the big DOD cuts Obama orchestrated...

That's all fine and good, but the government does a lot more work via contractors now. Meaning that instead of having a good civil service job with benefits, all of those workers are wage-slaves to a company that is keeping the profits they get from you.

I don't see how that's an improvement.

thurstonxhowell: As far as I can tell, those numbers don't include contractors. If they don't include contractors, they're a bunch of nonsense. Attempting to use them to prove anything about anything is utterly futile.

Yep. Reagan was the tops at rewarding BS contracts. There was one group "Chicanos for Reagan" that would regularly receive software development contracts, although the shell company had no staff that could actually develop software. They way it worked was the head of "Chicanos for Reagan" had a company that won contracts on a regular basis. They would hire another group, such as Standford Research, to write the code for the contract. Both SRI and the CfR guy's company would buy specialized hardware to run the software. Most time nobody actually wanted the service to begin with and it just was tax money out the door.