Source: New York Times From it: "The government sector of the economy shrank during the first three years of the Obama administration, but the private sector grew more rapidly than it did during the first three years of either of George W. Bush's terms in office. The charts show the growth in gross domestic product from the first quarter of the year in which each president was inaugurated through the first quarter of the subsequent election year. All figures are adjusted for inflation."

True. His government is still too big to fit into a uterus.

vpb: Well, Bush said the same thing so why can't Obama?

When Obama says it, it's true?

FlashHarry: it has reached the point where literally everything republicans say is easily debunked bullshiat.

they must hate the internet

GOP grow government more than the Dems.

Been a fact for decades now.

/See also: Better for the economy overall.

Wait so there are still rubes that believe Reagan was a small government President?

Hahahahaha!

Which party hasn't been proposing laws that require a stranger to insert his\her fingers into your vagina? Which party hasn't been supporting laws that dictate where a person may insert his man-flute with mutual consent?


"Small government" is as much about social issues as it economic, and especially about what a person can do with his or her own body.

No subby, I know it's true because the facts prove that it's true.

Well yah, if you take into consideration all the state governments that Obama doesnt have control over then its true. Kinda like if Bush keeps all the wars off the books he didnt ring up the national debt to badly.

birchman: No subby, I know it's true because the facts prove that it's true.

Facts:Liberal::WHAARGARBL:Conservative

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: [i194.photobucket.com image 347x1024]

thanks a lot snowbama :(

This made my day.

Cyclometh: He's presided over the first real shrinkage of the government since the Vietnam era, so yeah... I'd say so.

Doesn't it just chap your hide when actual facts get in the way of your fantasy, subs?

THE NARRATIVE IS ALWAYS MORE VALID THAN THE FACTS!

The Tea Party believe that he is Big Government because that is what Fox News tells them. You can't expect people who base their beliefs off of what "feels" right to actually fact check.

obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

Hah, subby, don't be ridiculous. The guy who wants to dictate who you can and cannot marry is the small government president. You know, the guy who wants to tell you what medical procedures women can and cannot get. Yeah, that one, you remember him, he wants to say what medical procedures women must get whether they and their doctors like it or not. You might know him, he's the one who thinks brown US citizens should carry around their papers at all times or risk being detained. That's the small government president and that's why I'm voting for Mitt Romney, because Obama is none of that.

colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

I thought Obamacare was a handout to the private insurance industry? Fark really needs an LOLWUT button.

Citrate1007: The Tea Party believe that he is Big Government because that is what Fox News tells them. You can't expect people who base their beliefs off of what "feels" right to actually fact check.

Well, it sounds truthy.

An additional 5 trillion in debt can't be wrong.

Fart_Machine: Wait so there are still rubes that believe Reagan was a small government President?

Hahahahaha!

You have to understand, republicans are morons.

birchman: colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

I thought Obamacare was a handout to the private insurance industry? Fark really needs an LOLWUT button.

oh, did i get that wrong? the government forcing every american to participate in obama's healthcare program is a small government solution?

LOLWUTEVER

FlashHarry: it has reached the point where literally everything republicans say is easily debunked bullshiat.

Yet, the people that support them will eat it up and defend even the most absurd claims. Remember Bill O'Reilly's "Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!" gem? When that happened the teabagger at work got into it with half the engineering department in the lunchroom telling us that tides can't be explained by science. Facts don't matter to these people. Evidence doesn't matter to these people. All that matters is getting that n-bong out of the WH.

colon_pow: obama's healthcare program

Obama has a health care program? Where the fark can I sign up, the private insurance plan I've got costs me a fortune and sucks balls.

Mearen: An additional 5 trillion in debt can't be wrong.

It's almost as if he was handed a near trillion dollar deficit to start with, and then had to spend even more money to save the country from economic collapse.

Good thing that's not true, we all know that Obama took our deficit free booming economy and completely destroyed it with his out of control spending on, well, new things and stuff that were all his idea!

I wish in the posted graph that they would have seperated the Federal from Local/State spending and have 4 curves. Looking at the data below it shows that Local/State shrank emensely while the Fed grew some. I do not think the data proves nor disproves anything.

Is this about when he went back in his time machine and invented the Department of Homeland Security? Because yeah, I'll agree that was a stupid move.

Saiga410: I wish in the posted graph that they would have seperated the Federal from Local/State spending and have 4 curves. Looking at the data below it shows that Local/State shrank emensely while the Fed grew some. I do not think the data proves nor disproves anything.

It's a reflection of the horrendous economy of the Obama years. State and local governments have been forced to take an axe to their budgets.

Scerpes: Saiga410: I wish in the posted graph that they would have seperated the Federal from Local/State spending and have 4 curves. Looking at the data below it shows that Local/State shrank emensely while the Fed grew some. I do not think the data proves nor disproves anything.

It's a reflection of the horrendous economy of the Obama years. State and local governments have been forced to take an axe to their budgets.

I blame Fartbongo and his time machine.

Saiga410: I wish in the posted graph that they would have seperated the Federal from Local/State spending and have 4 curves. Looking at the data below it shows that Local/State shrank emensely while the Fed grew some. I do not think the data proves nor disproves anything.

As long as it also displayed how much of the state government is actually paid for with federal dollars.colon_pow: birchman: colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

I thought Obamacare was a handout to the private insurance industry? Fark really needs an LOLWUT button.

oh, did i get that wrong? the government forcing every american to participate in obama's healthcare program is a small government solution?

LOLWUTEVER

In about the same way that regulating who you can marry and mandating invasive health care procedures on women are small government solutions.

DarwiOdrade: colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

Please explain exactly how "obamacare" increases the size of government. Difficulty: base your explanation on reality.

ok. thousands of new irs agents

DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: horrendous economy

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 454x321]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

See how stupid you are?

You might want to take a look at the financial realities facing state and local governments.

DarwiOdrade: But I thought shrinking government was a good thing. Keep your talking points straight.

Saving money by reducing the role of government in your lives is one thing. Laying off cops and firefighters because you no longer have the money to pay them is something else.

birchman: As long as it also displayed how much of the state government is actually paid for with federal dollars

I am all for more information. But money given to states is considered federal govt spending... that should be realized in a federal spending breakout.

Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: horrendous economy

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 454x321]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

See how stupid you are?

You might want to take a look at the financial realities facing state and local governments.

So, yes the stock market has recovered, yes we went from losing 750,000 jobs a month to now gaining ~150,000+ jobs a month, yes GDP went from negative to positive, yes corporate profits are at record levels, yes Obama saved the auto industry, yes unemployment is going down, yes the job growth and unemployment numbers are getting better even with huge cuts to public sector jobs but local governments have a budget crisis so the economy is horrendous?

Wow, okay.

Corvus: colon_pow: DarwiOdrade: colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

Please explain exactly how "obamacare" increases the size of government. Difficulty: base your explanation on reality.

ok. thousands of new irs agents

You mean this BS lie?

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

[oh snap.jpg]

DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: But I thought shrinking government was a good thing. Keep your talking points straight.

Saving money by reducing the role of government in your lives is one thing. Laying off cops and firefighters because you no longer have the money to pay them is something else.

Is Obama really making the decisions to lay of cops and firefighters, or is that being done by state governments? And which state governments, I wonder...

Oh look - Republican state legislatures are laying off more government workers than Democratic ones. What a shock!

First, I never said Obama made a decision to lay off cops or firefighters.

More importantly, your article specifically says the following:

1. Democratic governors and legislatures had a much better record on state government jobs, cutting them by a smaller percentage than their Republican counterparts.
2. Republican governors and legislatures, by contrast, did much better on local government jobs.
3. Legislatures that are split between the parties had the best performance of all.
4. There is virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats when the state and local jobs are combined.

I'm not exactly sure how you manage to twist that into "Oh look - Republican state legislatures are laying off more government workers than Democratic ones. What a shock!"

Corvus: colon_pow: DarwiOdrade: colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

Please explain exactly how "obamacare" increases the size of government. Difficulty: base your explanation on reality.

ok. thousands of new irs agents

You mean this BS lie?

Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?

A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

The IRS is actually asking for more new workers than reported in an article by U.S. News and World Report - a story that has generated a lot of Internet buzz after being picked up by news outlets, such as Fox News and The Daily Caller. The IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 shows that the agency is seeking at least 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Link

Headso: FlashHarry: it has reached the point where literally everything republicans say is easily debunked bullshiat.

they must hate the internet

FTFY.

Bush increased government payroll, Obama has decreased it. So, yeah.

DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: But I thought shrinking government was a good thing. Keep your talking points straight.

Saving money by reducing the role of government in your lives is one thing. Laying off cops and firefighters because you no longer have the money to pay them is something else.

Is Obama really making the decisions to lay of cops and firefighters, or is that being done by state governments? And which state governments, I wonder...

Oh look - Republican state legislatures are laying off more government workers than Democratic ones. What a shock!

First, I never said Obama made a decision to lay off cops or firefighters.

More importantly, your article specifically says the following:

1. Democratic governors and legislatures had a much better record on state government jobs, cutting them by a smaller percentage than their Republican counterparts.
2. Republican governors and legislatures, by contrast, did much better on local government jobs.
3. Legislatures that are split between the parties had the best performance of all.
4. There is virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats when the state and local jobs are combined.

I'm not exactly sure how you manage to twist that into "Oh look - Republican state legislatures are laying off more government workers than Democratic ones. What a shock!"

I guess the word STATE was completely invisible.

So then you're completely ignoring the fact that Democratic states are hammering local governments. Fair enough.

FlashHarry: it has reached the point where literally everything republicans say is easily debunked bullshiat will still be believed whole-heartedly by Fox News viewers regardless of factuality.

FTFY

God's Hubris: Bush increased government payroll, Obama has decreased it. So, yeah.

So then Obama really did lay off all of the cops and firefighters that has led to the reduction in state and local government spending?

DarwiOdrade: So then you're completely ignoring the fact that Democratic states are hammering local governments. Fair enough.

Well since you're completely ignoring the fact that Obama has no control over what states do with their budgets, I figured it was only fair.

Not ignoring that at all. All I said is that the Obama years have not been kind to state and local governments.

Liberals don't want big government per se.

As a rule liberals want efficient government, fair government, sane government.

Never heard a liberal in my life advocate growing government just for the sake of it yet in the minds of so many deluded conservative folks it is an undeniable truth that this is what liberals really think.

You can see them here in this thread.

The trolls who are coming here loaded for bear (they think) firmly convinced that this meme they've heard repeated their entire lives is true despite it being patently incorrect.

Sometime I think that maybe just maybe if you point this kind of thing out to them often enough that something inside them will snap and they will instantly review their entire derp narrative with more narrowed eyes and actual independent thought and finally see that they've been being lied to for long about oh so much.

Then I laugh at myself for being so gosh darn silly.

Then I usually go get a coffee. I like coffee.

/Also turtles.

All the worst dictator in history most likely took a crap on May 5th.

Therefore, Barack Obama is just like them!

/Vote Republican

Scerpes: God's Hubris: Bush increased government payroll, Obama has decreased it. So, yeah.

So then Obama really did lay off all of the cops and firefighters that has led to the reduction in state and local government spending?

He is only responsible for good things.

chimp_ninja: Source: New York Times From it: "The government sector of the economy shrank during the first three years of the Obama administration, but the private sector grew more rapidly than it did during the first three years of either of George W. Bush's terms in office. The charts show the growth in gross domestic product from the first quarter of the year in which each president was inaugurated through the first quarter of the subsequent election year. All figures are adjusted for inflation."

It's cute that you are attributing the state and local cuts of largely republican legislatures to president Obama... Your charts show federal spending increasing.

FlashHarry: For the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

40 years. that means he's even more of a "small-governement president" than the most exalted one, saint jesus reagan.

Federal spending up. Local and state down... Obama gets credit for the state decreases? Oh... Didn't realize he was personally involved in state legislatures.

Wait, which is the one saying the government should be able to tell gays what they can and can't do?

It's no more a lie than Republicans proclaiming that they are libertarians and that they support freedom.

Facts are just not on the Repubs side.

Every Contard in this thread got owned and kept going. They must love punishment.

More fitting than the "food stamp president," any way.

/but don't you dare call them racist!

quatchi: Liberals don't want big government per se.

As a rule liberals want efficient government, fair government, sane government.

Never heard a liberal in my life advocate growing government just for the sake of it yet in the minds of so many deluded conservative folks it is an undeniable truth that this is what liberals really think.

You can see them here in this thread.

The trolls who are coming here loaded for bear (they think) firmly convinced that this meme they've heard repeated their entire lives is true despite it being patently incorrect.

Sometime I think that maybe just maybe if you point this kind of thing out to them often enough that something inside them will snap and they will instantly review their entire derp narrative with more narrowed eyes and actual independent thought and finally see that they've been being lied to for long about oh so much.

Then I laugh at myself for being so gosh darn silly.

Then I usually go get a coffee. I like coffee.

/Also turtles.



The boiled-down truth from that is much simpler: all modern Western political parties want the lowest taxes and smallest government required for a civilised society to function. The sole difference is what people class as "civilised".

Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: horrendous economy

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 454x321]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

[voices.washingtonpost.com image 450x320]

See how stupid you are?

You might want to take a look at the financial realities facing state and local governments.


Wait, so now the Federal Government controls state and local government's decision to lower their tax rate? Or are you not understanding that reducing the federal revenue stream means fewer monies going to the states. I don't get this.

Scerpes: God's Hubris: Bush increased government payroll, Obama has decreased it. So, yeah.

So then Obama really did lay off all of the cops and firefighters that has led to the reduction in state and local government spending?


What part of federal government (the part Obama is responsible for) are you not getting?

MyRandomName: FlashHarry: For the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.

40 years. that means he's even more of a "small-governement president" than the most exalted one, saint jesus reagan.

Federal spending up. Local and state down... Obama gets credit for the state decreases? Oh... Didn't realize he was personally involved in state legislatures.


Talk to Scerpes. He seems to think Obama is.

colon_pow: obamacare is a great example of His small governmentyness.

You mean Federal Romneycare? That's a good talking point!

God's Hubris: Scerpes: God's Hubris: Bush increased government payroll, Obama has decreased it. So, yeah.

So then Obama really did lay off all of the cops and firefighters that has led to the reduction in state and local government spending?


What part of federal government (the part Obama is responsible for) are you not getting?

I get that Obama is responsible for FEDERAL spending. A number of farkers here have suggested that Obama is responsible for reducing the size of government - through the reduction of state and local government. The only possible impact he has had on state and local government has been the economy that has savaged those governments. If they want to claim he's responsible for reducing the size of state and local government, they must accept that it's because of his economy.

Unless it's still Bush's economy...I guess then maybe Bush should be getting credit for reducing the size of state and local government over the last 3 years.

DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: So then you're completely ignoring the fact that Democratic states are hammering local governments. Fair enough.

Well since you're completely ignoring the fact that Obama has no control over what states do with their budgets, I figured it was only fair.

Not ignoring that at all. All I said is that the Obama years have not been kind to state and local governments.

You're also blaming Obama. How is this Obama's fault?

Is it still Bush's economy? So then he should get credit for the shrinking state and federal governments, right?

DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: So then you're completely ignoring the fact that Democratic states are hammering local governments. Fair enough.

Well since you're completely ignoring the fact that Obama has no control over what states do with their budgets, I figured it was only fair.

Not ignoring that at all. All I said is that the Obama years have not been kind to state and local governments.

You're also blaming Obama. How is this Obama's fault?

Is it still Bush's economy? So then he should get credit for the shrinking state and federal governments, right?

It has nothing to do with Bush, dumbass. Stop conflating the federal budget and state/local budgets. How is Obama responsible when he has no control over how states spend their money?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that, but then let's not give Obama credit for reducing the size of government.

I'll never understand why Republicans think making more people unemployed in a time of high unemployment is not only a good thing, but the only measure that should be taken to combat a recession.

To all the obama supporters:
It seems that he has done no wrong, and whilte it doesn't speak for all, it seems from the comments here that he has done everything perfectly. What are your complaints? He certainly is not perfect, but the GOP is so far out of touch that it is hard not to take their critics seriously. Just wondering what staunch obama supporters have to say.


/our gov is broken on both sides
//sick of bipartisan BS

X-boxershorts: The individual mandate. You most have health insurance.

Oh you must mean the tax benefit you get if you choose to have health insurance. How are they forcing you to do something exactly?

DarwiOdrade: Stop conflating the federal budget and state/local budgets. How is Obama responsible when he has no control over how states spend their money?

The conflating was started by some posters that put up a graph that showed total governmental spending is down vs gdp. The graph also stated that federal spending is up and state and local spending is down. And all of this as a confirmation that Obama is the small government president that has led to less govt spending. You just cannot explain that.

DarwiOdrade: Can't we give Obama credit for having fewer federal employees per capita? Isn't that a valid measure of "smaller government"?

If defined that way and with the information that I have seen... Yes Obama has led to smaller governement.

Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: Scerpes: DarwiOdrade: So then you're completely ignoring the fact that Democratic states are hammering local governments. Fair enough.

Well since you're completely ignoring the fact that Obama has no control over what states do with their budgets, I figured it was only fair.

Not ignoring that at all. All I said is that the Obama years have not been kind to state and local governments.

You're also blaming Obama. How is this Obama's fault?

Is it still Bush's economy? So then he should get credit for the shrinking state and federal governments, right?

It has nothing to do with Bush, dumbass. Stop conflating the federal budget and state/local budgets. How is Obama responsible when he has no control over how states spend their money?

I'm perfectly willing to accept that, but then let's not give Obama credit for reducing the size of government.


You're a pedantic prick. Obama can take credit for reducing the size of FEDERAL government.