What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[koalabear]

Obama has hired more federal employees than Bush did in eight years.

Government employment hasn't been this high since Clinton.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Rush is right, there has to be purpose behind the absolutely irresponsible policy decisions Obama's employed.

is there anything I said would happen

BACK IN 2008 THT HASNT?

 

[Ham Murabi]

The economy will never return to how it once was, that's quite certain.

That's what they said when Carter was president.

 

[busybody..]

That's what they said when Carter was president.

 

[onemadvagabond]

No dude, I'm not "confusing" federal and lobal government jobs. There were accusations that "government jobs" were increasing overall in number and as you can see they are not. Even using the slightly higher figures that you have, they are still decreasing significantly.

Yes there are certain sectors of the government that have expanded, mostly due to the War on Terror. The Bush Administration invented the Dept of Homeland Security, which is an entirely new sector of the executive branch. The CIA is beefed up. The FBI is beefed up. We have two wars which require a lot of troops and it's probably best not to get rid of them right now. And of course two wars require a lot of civilian Dept of Defense support. Then there's the TSA and all other associated security elements.

So getting back to the point, are the OVERALL number of government jobs increasing or decreasing? Even you will have to say decreasing. And that doesn't even include the fact that the Post Office is shrinking.

Let me explain it like this. You point out in your argument that local government jobs have fallen by 446,000. Then try and use those figures to make your argument that it is why federal employment is falling.

So there's minus a half-million government jobs right there.

When they say local jobs they are referring to city, county and state government jobs. Those are not federal jobs; therefore cannot be included in an argument to say federal jobs are declining. Local government jobs are declining due to lost revenue in taxes due to the poor state of the economy. A mojority of states have it as part of their constitutions that they have to have a balanced budget. An unfortunate side affect in these tough economic times is that they then begin to cut employment levels, yet keep wastefule spending. They do this in a guise to raise our taxes by saying look, we had to cut our employees so we can't provide for our residents as well now. Wasteful spending should be the first to go, before the employees in my opinion. Not sure how you feel. All of this is where you get the minus 446,000 local government jobs.

You then go to an article in the washington times to make your argument that federal employment numbers are dropping, when the title of the article is Largest ever federal payrol ever to hit 2.15 million. I will agree the numbers I gave were higher than the ones in the article, but I will go off of the governments posted employment numbers for a given year before I will go off of what a newspaper reporter tells me. I prefer to go to the source. The numbers I posted were for the executive branch (civiian employment) minus postal workers for those same years taken from the USPS website. Those numbers include temporary, part time, and intermittent employees as well, so yes they are higher than in the Times article. Of course if you are talking about employment levels, then they all need to be included, do they not. They are a part of the government employment.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

If you will look at the OPM numbers, they don't correlate with the Times numbers, or what the writer says the Obama admin says. I will go off of the source everytime before I will go off of a news article.

So as I have pointed out, you are confusing the numbers. Local and federal are two different groups. Also, in the article, you used this as one of your bullet points that for 2010 it was 2.15 and for 2011 it will be 2.11. Yet if you read the article they only discuss the increases being made in different sectors. They don't once mention where the cutbacks are coming from. A portion of the cutbacks are census workers. Part of my argument is the fact that if you count the census workers as part of your cutbacks, then they need to include all employees in there original numbers they are using. That is why I go off of the OPM numbers, which include all civilian employees. Though I did take it upon myself for your benefit to subtract postal employees as I stated before.

 

[onemadvagabond]

I'm not saying you don't have a right to feel this is why there's a problem, but I am saying with my reply anecdote that you can't arbitrarily decide another person's worth. Which is, despite the honest waste going on, a lot of what people sitting back in their easy chairs online are judging. Especially by biased people (often conservatives) towards whom they deem as "lazy" without having or caring to walk a few miles in another man's mocassins. If this is what is necessary for him to get by in disability, then so be it. If it isn't, then you prove and show through factual example that he doesn't need all that moolah. You gotta do that. I think that bench warmer for a NBA team that loses 90% of the time shouldn't be able to have five rarely driven Mercedes Benz' of different colors sitting out in the sun of his backyard mini-estate, but hey.... just like a fatcat corporation CEO who does a seemingly equal amount of nothing and loves his three-martini lunches at a Boulud restaurant, I can't tell people what they're worth or what they should be doing with the money that they earn or receive legally.

You made a very valid point and a good argument with this. Now if you take your last line there. I have a question for you. How do you feel about the whole idea of redistribution of wealth, where some of the people in the government want to take yours and so many other people's money that they earned or received legally and give it to other people. Many who are hard workers themselves, yes, but also a large number that are just plain lazy. Do you feel that is right or wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Obama has hired more federal employees than Bush did in eight years.

But he hasn't added a SINGLE position :kbate:, that's just "attrition."

He's shrinking government, reducing the deficit, adding jobs, mopping the floor, driving the car, and bridling the horse for 2012...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You made a very valid point and a good argument with this. Now if you take your last line there. I have a question for you. How do you feel about the whole idea of redistribution of wealth, where some of the people in the government want to take yours and so many other people's money that they earned or received legally and give it to other people. Many who are hard workers themselves, yes, but also a large number that are just plain lazy. Do you feel that is right or wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

I can answer that one.

Yes. It is a matter of "fairness." Those who have more have "cut corners."
__________________
Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

[mercury14]

That's nonsense. It is not a zero sum game. That's the problem with liberal thinking and the soak the rich mentality. I used to be in the party of JFK, but I left it when it became the party of Marx and Mao...

More competition means more business going elsewhere. For example, the US still produces a lot of iron. But now Brazil and a bunch of other South American countries produce heaps of iron too, not only competing with our companies but driving up supply and driving the price down, globally. See how that works?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Hahahaha, try and remember how the Iron belt disappeared overseas in the first place.

Oh yes, your "the problem is that we don't have enough shit jobs in America" line.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

More competition means more business going elsewhere. For example, the US still produces a lot of iron. But now Brazil and a bunch of other South American countries produce heaps of iron too, not only competing with our companies but driving up supply and driving the price down, globally. See how that works?

Still waiting for you to prove government's net loss of jobs.

No, you don't understand how it works. As they "emerge" then there is more business activity for all; a rising tide lifts all boats. They will still lag our creativity unless, of course, we apply government to the problem of our "shrinking" business base.

Our problem is uncertainty, regulation and "transformative change" that replaces economics with the polity of fairness. Go back a few pages and red the post on 35,000 feet...
__________________
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year--$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

If you ask your government to treat everyone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Let me explain it like this. You point out in your argument that local government jobs have fallen by 446,000. Then try and use those figures to make your argument that it is why federal employment is falling.



When they say local jobs they are referring to city, county and state government jobs. Those are not federal jobs; therefore cannot be included in an argument to say federal jobs are declining. Local government jobs are declining due to lost revenue in taxes due to the poor state of the economy. A mojority of states have it as part of their constitutions that they have to have a balanced budget. An unfortunate side affect in these tough economic times is that they then begin to cut employment levels, yet keep wastefule spending. They do this in a guise to raise our taxes by saying look, we had to cut our employees so we can't provide for our residents as well now. Wasteful spending should be the first to go, before the employees in my opinion. Not sure how you feel. All of this is where you get the minus 446,000 local government jobs.

You then go to an article in the washington times to make your argument that federal employment numbers are dropping, when the title of the article is Largest ever federal payrol ever to hit 2.15 million. I will agree the numbers I gave were higher than the ones in the article, but I will go off of the governments posted employment numbers for a given year before I will go off of what a newspaper reporter tells me. I prefer to go to the source. The numbers I posted were for the executive branch (civiian employment) minus postal workers for those same years taken from the USPS website. Those numbers include temporary, part time, and intermittent employees as well, so yes they are higher than in the Times article. Of course if you are talking about employment levels, then they all need to be included, do they not. They are a part of the government employment.

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

If you will look at the OPM numbers, they don't correlate with the Times numbers, or what the writer says the Obama admin says. I will go off of the source everytime before I will go off of a news article.

So as I have pointed out, you are confusing the numbers. Local and federal are two different groups. Also, in the article, you used this as one of your bullet points that for 2010 it was 2.15 and for 2011 it will be 2.11. Yet if you read the article they only discuss the increases being made in different sectors. They don't once mention where the cutbacks are coming from. A portion of the cutbacks are census workers. Part of my argument is the fact that if you count the census workers as part of your cutbacks, then they need to include all employees in there original numbers they are using. That is why I go off of the OPM numbers, which include all civilian employees. Though I did take it upon myself for your benefit to subtract postal employees as I stated before.

Again, my argument is that the number of government jobs has been declining. By that I've always meant overall government jobs. Stop trying to make my argument into something I never said. Okay so let me know if you disagree with these points:

1) Federal government jobs are pretty stable. Hiring obviously spiked around the time of the census.

2) Federal jobs have been growing in sectors such as homeland security and defense, which both Republicans and Democrats support.

3) Local government jobs have shrunk by almost hald a million since 2008.

4) There is a net loss of government jobs when you add the local, state, and federal figures.

5) Republicans voted for big boosts in the CIA, FBI, and Dept of Defense government staffing post-911. Then a Republican president entered us into two wars. Then a Republican president created an entire new executive branch department called the Department of Homeland Secutiry, and staffed it with tens/hundreds of thousands of employees.

6) According to that article, 79% of new goverment hiring is in these areas.

7) After voting to expand the government if not doing it themselves outright, they're now turning around and blaming democrats for the government being too big.

 

[mercury14]

Obama has hired more federal employees than Bush did in eight years.

Show evidence for this whopper please. (And don't count census temp workers)

 

[mercury14]

Steel worker unions upped the price of manual labor to a point we couldn't compete, they drove the industry overseas.

Yes, we know your tired old line that the real problem is that Americans want to have decent jobs and not live equivalent to a Rio shanty town peasant.

 

[koalabear]

Show evidence for this whopper please. (And don't count census temp workers)

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million. 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”

yes 2009, and the payroll is still over 2 million

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

 

[mercury14]

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million. 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”

yes 2009, and the payroll is still over 2 million

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/

Dingbat, I already cited that article. It DOES count temporary census workers. And nowhere does it prove Vette's point in any way.

Also I'm sitting on a reference showing the massive government hiring spree under Bush (and no, not when the Dems controlled congress). Apparently the whole war on terror and new cabinet branches took a lot of manning. And hiring under Bush way exceeds hiring under Obama (which is a negative number if you don't include census workers). I would like to see how many righties want to get on board with your lying bullshit before I spring it on you though.

 

[koalabear]

Dingbat, I already cited that article. It DOES count temporary census workers. And nowhere does it prove Vette's point in any way.

So you can't understand, have your mom explain it to you. Stupid.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

My point is true, regardless of your benightedness.

No, your point is a tiny slice of true. But even without unions the plain fact is that third-world countries are going to pay 1/50th of what a US company pays, even without a union.

 

[unregistered]