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.

(Think Progress)   Rand Paul shocked, SHOCKED to learn number of Americans employed by the government has decreased under Obama   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 280
    More: Dumbass, Rand Paul, obama, Americans, early 2000s recession, federal government, Americans employed, George H. W. Bush  
•       •       •

5906 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2012 at 4:24 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



280 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-09 01:58:49 PM  
I can't wait to see his face when he realizes Obama is black.
 
2012-09-09 02:00:01 PM  
KRUGMAN: Of course. That's a fact. That's a tremendous fact.

PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Feel proud, Kentucky, feel proud.

As a matter of fact, the share of jobs in the economy provided by the public sector went up following the 2001 recession under George W. Bush, the 1990 recession under George H.W. Bush, and the 1981 recession under Ronald Reagan. Only after the latest recession, which hit just before Obama took office, did the share of public jobs drop.

[themoreyouknow]
 
2012-09-09 02:02:50 PM  
From TFA:  Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did  just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.  
 
Sorry for the liberal apologists at ThinkProgress, but that is exactly what Rand Paul was thinking about. And furthermore, he's correct. Under Obama, federal employment has increased.  Obama has absolutely nothing to do with state and local government employment.
 
Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush. 
 
2012-09-09 02:04:24 PM  
This proves two points:

The first obvious: That he is a farking idiot unfit for his job.
Second: That he obviously doesn't REALLY care about the size of government - if it was as big a deal to him as he claims he would be interested in it, follow it, and know about it.
 
2012-09-09 02:04:28 PM  
You mean the principles that underlie conservative opinions aren't based on empirical facts? Im stunned!
 
2012-09-09 02:06:51 PM  
PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Man On A Mission: From TFA: Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.


300K jobs? History's greatest monster.
 
2012-09-09 02:07:18 PM  

Man On A Mission: From TFA:  Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did  just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.  
 
Sorry for the liberal apologists at ThinkProgress, but that is exactly what Rand Paul was thinking about. And furthermore, he's correct. Under Obama, federal employment has increased.  Obama has absolutely nothing to do with state and local government employment.
 
Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush.


Over his two terms Bush added 37,000 federal employees too. Clinton reduced federal employees by 300,000.

Can I infer that you're a big Clinton fan?
 
2012-09-09 02:08:55 PM  

Mentat: 300K jobs?


0.03M = 30k = 30000
Off by a factor of 10, there.
 
2012-09-09 02:09:17 PM  

Mentat: PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Man On A Mission: From TFA: Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.

300K jobs? History's greatest monster.


30K. Not 300K.
 
2012-09-09 02:14:08 PM  
And remember folks, this is the GOP's idea of a policy wonk.
 
2012-09-09 02:15:25 PM  

DamnYankees: Mentat: PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Man On A Mission: From TFA: Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.

300K jobs? History's greatest monster.

30K. Not 300K.


That changes everything then.
 
2012-09-09 02:15:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Mentat: PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Man On A Mission: From TFA: Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.

300K jobs? History's greatest monster.

30K. Not 300K.


He added an average of 700 federal government jobs a month? My God. He's at least as bad as eleventy bazillion Hitlers all rolled into one!
 
2012-09-09 02:17:17 PM  

Man On A Mission: Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush.


30,000 is not ENORMOUS GROWTH as your butt-buddy Rand Paul claimed.

PS: He's not going to sleep with you.
 
2012-09-09 02:17:23 PM  

Man On A Mission: From TFA:  Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did  just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.  
 
Sorry for the liberal apologists at ThinkProgress, but that is exactly what Rand Paul was thinking about. And furthermore, he's correct. Under Obama, federal employment has increased.  Obama has absolutely nothing to do with state and local government employment.
 
Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush.


Except, of course, as was pointed out in TFA, much of the federal spending is on direct aid to states. Money the states use to employ state and local level public sector employees.
 
2012-09-09 02:20:58 PM  

Tigger: Can I infer that you're a big Clinton fan?


Voted for him each time, would vote for him again if it weren't for that pesky 22nd Amendment.  Voted to Obama last time and plan to do so again this November.  
 
Of course, I'm also enjoying all the "But...but...but..." commentary here over the fact that Rand Paul was actually correct.  
 
2012-09-09 02:22:54 PM  

Man On A Mission: Of course, I'm also enjoying all the "But...but...but..." commentary here over the fact that Rand Paul was actually correct.


How was he correct? Look at hsi words:

Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush?

No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government?


Every single one of those sentence is false. To make them true, you need to add words. That's what known as "not true".
 
2012-09-09 02:23:37 PM  

Man On A Mission:
Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush.


cherry picked numbers from an apologist
 
2012-09-09 02:24:48 PM  

Man On A Mission: Sorry for the liberal apologists at ThinkProgress, but that is exactly what Rand Paul was thinking about.


Ah, yet another GOP Psychic - Glad to see when they aren't telling us what Democrats think they can divine what their fellow republicans think.
 
2012-09-09 02:26:08 PM  
Is the number of people employed by government terribly relevant? If so, why?
 
2012-09-09 02:26:21 PM  
Rand Paul was "correct" in the same sense that 47 percent of Americans "don't pay taxes". It's a bullshiat statistic meant to evince a negative reaction, and it is full of wind, signifying nothing.

3,770,000 vs 3,800,000. A 0.8% increase in Federal jobs. Yeah, THAT broke the farking bank, not the Bush tax cuts or two wars.
 
2012-09-09 02:28:16 PM  

kronicfeld: 30,000 is not ENORMOUS GROWTH as your butt-buddy Rand Paul claimed.


It's a 1% increase in federal employees to serve a population that grew over 3% during that time.
 
2012-09-09 02:28:28 PM  

Man On A Mission: Tigger: Can I infer that you're a big Clinton fan?

Voted for him each time, would vote for him again if it weren't for that pesky 22nd Amendment.  Voted to Obama last time and plan to do so again this November.  
 
Of course, I'm also enjoying all the "But...but...but..." commentary here over the fact that Rand Paul was actually correct.


He's actually correct?

2.77 million -> 2.8 million is "enormous growth?"

You and Rand seem to share a rather strange definition of "enormous"
 
2012-09-09 02:29:02 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Rand Paul was "correct" in the same sense that 47 percent of Americans "don't pay taxes". It's a bullshiat statistic meant to evince a negative reaction, and it is full of wind, signifying nothing.

3,770,000 vs 3,800,000. A 0.8% increase in Federal jobs. Yeah, THAT broke the farking bank, not the Bush tax cuts or two wars.


He moved from 'technically correct but deceptive' to 'actually farking wrong' when he described the growth of government under Obama as "enormous".
 
2012-09-09 02:29:50 PM  

DamnYankees: Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush?

 
No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.
 
Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government?
 
Let's take those one by one, shalle we?
 
1) There are not fewer federal government employees under Obama than were under Bush.  I repeat, the President does not control state and local governments, so trying to give him credit/blame for such is false.  Score: True for Paul.
 
2) The size of growth was not enormous. Score: False for Paul
 
3) There are more people employed by the federal government now. Score: True for Paul. 
 
In other words, two out of three were correct.  But continue to use factors that the President has no control over to make your false points.
 
I also call out the idiots who think the President is in control of gas prices, so any attempt to label me as a partisan hack as a way to discredit my points is obviously false and rather pathetic (and to those who think I want to have sex with Rand Paul, you all might want to look up the word "projection").
 
The truth is that ThinkProgess is a well-known left-wing site and will twist things to make the right look stupid.  That they are more civil about it tan sites with Beirtbart and WND does not make them any more truthful or honest.  If people could put their partisan hatred aside, they would see the truth through the haze of misdirection and personal attacks directed at those that dare to believe differently.
 
2012-09-09 02:31:12 PM  

Dinki: Man On A Mission: Sorry for the liberal apologists at ThinkProgress, but that is exactly what Rand Paul was thinking about.

Ah, yet another GOP Psychic - Glad to see when they aren't telling us what Democrats think they can divine what their fellow republicans think.


No, no, no, he's not a Republican, he voted for Obama. He's just 'concerned.'
 
2012-09-09 02:31:41 PM  

Man On A Mission: 1) There are not fewer federal government employees under Obama than were under Bush.  I repeat, the President does not control state and local governments, so trying to give him credit/blame for such is false.  Score: True for Paul.

3) There are more people employed by the federal government now. Score: True for Paul.


The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them, changing the meaning of the sentences. Yes, if you say something different from what Paul said, it is true. I grant that.
 
2012-09-09 02:32:04 PM  
And apologies for the bad spelling/grammar.  Not the world's greatest self-editor.
 
2012-09-09 02:33:23 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Man On A Mission: Tigger:

2.77 million -> 2.8 million is "enormous growth?"

You and Rand seem to share a rather strange definition of "enormous"


I wonder what other things Rand might qualify as enormous?

micropenis.jpg

/obvious joke is obvious
 
2012-09-09 02:34:28 PM  

Man On A Mission: 1) There are not fewer federal government employees under Obama than were under Bush. I repeat, the President does not control state and local governments, so trying to give him credit/blame for such is false. Score: True for Paul.


Federal support for states, how does that work? The Federal government has a direct impact on funds available to the states.

From the article that you are willing to parse so precisely (and yet somehow missed this):

In no small part this is due to another point Krugman made - that the stimulus, while large, was inadequate to the country's needs. This has been particularly true in the area of state aid. Spending cuts at the state level overtook additional spending at the federal level in late 2009 and have been driving a contraction in the public sector ever since.

And if you want to slip the word "federal" into Paul's mouth just tape it to Ayn Rand's cock.
 
2012-09-09 02:35:17 PM  

DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,


Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies. 
 
2012-09-09 02:35:27 PM  

dameron: kronicfeld: 30,000 is not ENORMOUS GROWTH as your butt-buddy Rand Paul claimed.

It's a 1% increase in federal employees to serve a population that grew over 3% during that time.


This is a fairly important point. the US population grew at a faster rate than did the number of Federal employees. So in any sort of sensible metric, the proportion of "government" workers fell, even if you only look at Federal workers. But that would involve the use of math, and as we saw over the last two weeks, the only person out there actually using correct math in his speeches is Bubba Clinton.
 
2012-09-09 02:35:30 PM  
PAUL: Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government?

Neither, but there are fewer empoyed
 
2012-09-09 02:37:59 PM  
Lots of smoke and mirrors here all of a sudden, and not all of it's from Rand Paul.
 
2012-09-09 02:39:08 PM  
Somebody is working hard to scrub this thread
 
2012-09-09 02:40:38 PM  

Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies.


It's also the point that undermines you. Rand Paul was wrong. You can make him right by changing his words to make it something true, but that's not relevant. What he said was false, and you attributing good faith to him and bad faith to Krugman is simply baseless.
 
2012-09-09 02:45:12 PM  

DamnYankees: Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies.

It's also the point that undermines you. Rand Paul was wrong. You can make him right by changing his words to make it something true, but that's not relevant. What he said was false, and you attributing good faith to him and bad faith to Krugman is simply baseless.


And how much you want to bet if Paul had said "taxes have gone up" And Krugman had pointed out that Federal taxes are at a 50 year low, Our friend here would have said "But Rand was talking about all taxes- Federal, state, and local"
 
2012-09-09 02:47:45 PM  

Man On A Mission: Bottom line, more people are working for the federal government under Obama than did so under Bush.


http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workfo rc e-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/
 
2012-09-09 02:47:58 PM  
I love this.

One effing blithering idiot spouts nothing but talking points, and is immediately curb stomped by several people calmly quoting fact and emphasizing logic and perspective.

Gives me hope for the future.

Also gives me another effwit to throw on the tire fire that is my ignore list.
 
2012-09-09 02:48:39 PM  

Dinki: DamnYankees: Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies.

It's also the point that undermines you. Rand Paul was wrong. You can make him right by changing his words to make it something true, but that's not relevant. What he said was false, and you attributing good faith to him and bad faith to Krugman is simply baseless.

And how much you want to bet if Paul had said "taxes have gone up" And Krugman had pointed out that Federal taxes are at a 50 year low, Our friend here would have said "But Rand was talking about all taxes- Federal, state, and local"


It's also way more expensive to go see a movie than it was 50 years ago.

Goddam I hate that 0bama!
 
2012-09-09 02:49:51 PM  

DamnYankees: you attributing good faith to him and bad faith to Krugman is simply baseless.

 
And I believe that Krugman is/was using bad faith towards Paul and that Paul was reacting to what he thought was unsupported numbers.  Different strokes.  
 
And the point about population growth and total percentage of federal employees is a good one. I hadn't thought of that, so in that context, Paul is wrong on percentage if not actual numbers.
 
And apparently I now have some super secret squirrel powers or something.  Weird. Though I did forget about the damn filter. (Boobies!)
 
2012-09-09 02:58:33 PM  

Man On A Mission: And I believe that Krugman is/was using bad faith towards Paul and that Paul was reacting to what he thought was unsupported numbers.


That's because Paul didn't know what the numbers were and didn't care.
 
2012-09-09 03:05:16 PM  

Man On A Mission: And the point about population growth and total percentage of federal employees is a good one.


Yes. It is. Furthermore there's this chart that I'm sure would shock Rand Paul:

www.dailyhaiku.com

The federal government is smaller relative to the size of the US population that it has been in at least fifty years.

Also, if you remove the massive irrational DHS hiring boom under GWB it would be much smaller still.
 
2012-09-09 03:06:12 PM  
Tell me how the size of the federal government grew in comparison to the population of the US over the past four years.

While you're at it, remind me how many non-military federal governmental employees were employed in 1980 vs 2010. (hint: there are less people working for the federal government today than 30 years ago)
 
2012-09-09 03:11:37 PM  

Mentat: PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.

Man On A Mission: From TFA: Now, perhaps Sen. Paul was thinking of employment by the federal government alone, which did just slightly: 2.77 million at the end 2008 versus 2.8 million currently.

300K jobs? History's greatest monster.


That's even funnier considering your handle.
 
2012-09-09 03:19:30 PM  

Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies. 


Gotta love people who base their view of the world on what they want to believe rather than what actually is.
 
2012-09-09 03:23:48 PM  

Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies.


If he meant that, then he should've said it.

How can Krugman deliberately misinterpret if it was the plain text of what Rand Paul was saying?
 
2012-09-09 03:29:31 PM  

Generation_D: I love this.


Also gives me another effwit to throw on the tire fire that is my ignore list.


Just scrolled through your profile's ignore list. Took me down memory lane full of derp and hurr.
 
2012-09-09 03:30:49 PM  

Man On A Mission: And apologies for the bad spelling/grammar.  Not the world's greatest self-editor.


Nor the world's greatest political or economic analyst, either, by the evidence here.
 
2012-09-09 03:33:01 PM  

RexTalionis: If he meant that, then he should've said it.

 
One last time, and then I let the herp-and-derp birgdade continue to muddle through.
 
When talking about the President and the government, it is completely understandable to equate this discussion to the federal government. You know, the part that the President has a modicum of control over.  To then throw in the guy who picks up your trash on Tuesdays is simply hackery. Paul, from what I saw from watching the clip (which I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people here did not do) is obviously referring to the federal government. A point that was even made (in a mocking way, of course) by TFA. Dumping in state and local governments, as Krugman did, is a false base.
 
If Krugman had argued the population vs. employment numbers as some of more level-headed people here, then we'd have a legimitate debate.  He did not, and sought only to make a cheap, partisan score.
 
That so many people here automatically (and very knee-jerkingly) side with Krugman over Paul when both are well known partisans shows how partisan so many here really are.  People honestly don't want truth, they want "their" side to "win" regardless of how the playing field gets shifted in mid-game.
 
2012-09-09 03:34:06 PM  

Dr. Goldshnoz: Man On A Mission: DamnYankees: The word "federal"does not show up in Paul's words. You added them,

Because I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to, and what ThinkProgress and Paul Kurgman were deliberately misinterpeting.  Is that too hard to understand?  It's only the point I made in my Boobies. 

Gotta love people who base their view of the world on what they want to believe rather than what actually is.


No I do not have to love them. -_o


:D
 
Displayed 50 of 280 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report