Size of Government under Obama is 273K smaller than under Reagan

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan

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


Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. 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.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

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.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.
 
Which brings us to the ultimate question based upon your reasoning. Why do we keep giving raises to these nonmilitary government people consistently producing lesser and lesser positive results?
 
Nice try, but it is Congress that controls the size of government, not the Executive branch.
 
How much did each employee cost in pay and benefits in 1994 vs 2011?




Does that include contractors (who cost more to employ)?
 
Also keep in mind that the last numbers available are from 2010, they don't include the new growth from Health Care programs which have yet to kick in.

Also percentage-wise 273K in not that big a percentage change and the number has grown larger very year so far under Obama...

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

The total number was going down under Bush.

Obama reversed that trend.



Next?
 
The OPENING POSTER

Has, if possible, even further NIGGERIZED himself with that post:rolleyes:
 
Also keep in mind that the last numbers available are from 2010, they don't include the new growth from Health Care programs which have yet to kick in.

Also percentage-wise 273K in not that big a percentage change and the number has grown larger very year so far under Obama...

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

The total number was going down under Bush.

Obama reversed that trend.



Next?

How is the new health care law going to create more government workers?

Please let us know...
 
Leaving all your other poorly-made points aside....the difference between Reagan's 1980 numbers and Obama's 2010 numbers could be logically accounted for by improvements in technology, automation, and use of computers. Apples to oranges.
 
Also keep in mind that the last numbers available are from 2010, they don't include the new growth from Health Care programs which have yet to kick in.

Also percentage-wise 273K in not that big a percentage change and the number has grown larger very year so far under Obama...

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

The total number was going down under Bush.

Obama reversed that trend.
Next?

Let's see...
Fallacy of the unknown...
Fallacy of the small sample...
Declarin' "victory".
:rolleyes:
 
Leaving all your other poorly-made points aside....the difference between Reagan's 1980 numbers and Obama's 2010 numbers could be logically accounted for by improvements in technology, automation, and use of computers. Apples to oranges.

Such is irrelevant if we are discussing strictly the number of Federal employees. LT isn't a very deep thinker, but that's the premise of his thread.
 
Leaving all your other poorly-made points aside....the difference between Reagan's 1980 numbers and Obama's 2010 numbers could be logically accounted for by improvements in technology, automation, and use of computers. Apples to oranges.

and fairy dust. Don't forget fairy dust....
 
How is the new health care law going to create more government workers?

Please let us know...

It's going to run itself?



How does that work in real life?

Obama is each year steadily increasing the number of Federal Employees, so ays the government. This invalidates one of the premises in the OP.
 
Such is irrelevant if we are discussing strictly the number of Federal employees. LT isn't a very deep thinker, but that's the premise of his thread.

A closer reading reveals that the LT premise is that Republicans grow government, Democrats shrink it.

That was easily proven to be fallacious during the time frame he wished to reference.


There's a reason he posted for another hour or so and never came back to this thread.

:) Shit Happens!
 
what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China?

So what? just cuz Jimmie punched you yesterday doesn't mean you can punch him today. dumbass

can government be downsized, YES!

god, people like you are so flipping stupid - no wonder you have to work for the government



http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan

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


Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. 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.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

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.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.
 
what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China?

So what? just cuz Jimmie punched you yesterday doesn't mean you can punch him today. dumbass

can government be downsized, YES!

god, people like you are so flipping stupid - no wonder you have to work for the government

You have LT all wrong.

He's a self-made millionaire and world renown philanthropist.
 
It's going to run itself?



How does that work in real life?

Obama is each year steadily increasing the number of Federal Employees, so ays the government. This invalidates one of the premises in the OP.

You clearly don't understand what you're against.

Please show me how the health care law is going to increase the size of government.

I guess your handlers haven't explained it to you, so therefor, you're clueless as to how to answer.
 
Back
Top