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

[Busybody]

Vette and BB, you should compare the growth rate of government workers right now under Obama to when we had an all-Republican government.

Ok

SHOW US

 

[Busybody]

Ok

SHOW US

and waiting

 

[mercury14]

Ok

SHOW US

The chart that you just quoted me on proves it.

 

[mercury14]

You should probably get a clue instead, nobody has increased the dependency on government more than Barack Obama.

How? Almost every government safety net in place today was put in place long before Obama came along. You have Obamacare where working people are going to be getting health insurance now, but they still have to buy it themselves. Even if they get a government subsidy, they're likely to still be on the hook for the majority of the cost.

What are you talking about?

 

[Busybody]

The chart that you just quoted me on proves it.

Security, Protection, compliance and enforcement (62,863 new hires)


What is it?

 

[mercury14]

Security, Protection, compliance and enforcement (62,863 new hires)


What is it?

Look at the chart skyrocket during the Bush years, and that doesn't even include the surge in contractors. Then it levels off in the Obama years. What part of that are you failing to comprehend.

Regardless, the number of federal employees has been pretty stable since the 1950s.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

What does this chart show?

It shows federal employees spiking twice under Obama and higher still than when Bush was in office.

Strange. It's almost like there were temporary census hires or something.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Look at the bottom line, clown. Federal employment is up.

And I already showed you it was mostly because of a bipartisan plan to increase staffing to the Dept of Defense, CIA, Dept of Homeland Security, border patrol, and other security programs. It's fine for you to oppose defense programs, but don't act like Obama is just hiring non-functioning government bureaucrats for no reason.

 

[mercury14]

Look at the bottom line, clown. Federal employment is up.

Not really.

And those are raw numbers. If you look at federal employment per capita it's declined significantly over time.

 

[LadyVer]

xo guys. BB, did you forget to take your ADD meds this morning? You sure talk a lot early in the AM. It's kind of cute though.

I try not to take sides on the GB, guys. Mice try to get along with everyone and it looks like most of you could do with some improvement. Nothing personal,

Vette, I hope you and your nemesis are now off each other's ignore list. This way you won't need an intermediary.

Have a wondeful day everyone!

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Bullshit! The simple truth is there are more federal workers under Obama than under Bush. If you include "all" government employees, state and federal the numbers are down under Obama, but that isn't what we're talking about. Incidentally, one must remember those total government numbers may be down but they are at the level they are because Obama sent stimulus money to the states to keep them on the payroll, or they would be even less. So, thanks to Obama total government is higher than it would be without his stimulus.

... and it's because of increased defense spending that the GOP wanted. What part of that are you against?

 

[Busybody]

Look at the chart skyrocket during the Bush years, and that doesn't even include the surge in contractors. Then it levels off in the Obama years. What part of that are you failing to comprehend.

Regardless, the number of federal employees has been pretty stable since the 1950s.

Non responsive at all


I posted a C n P that said under Obama, 101 new FED workers were hired.......(I don't know if that's a lot or a little), You said MOST of em were TSA and DHS.......SHOW ME!

I'll wait

Stop with the

BUSH DID IT SHIT

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

The point was federal employees are up, not why they are up. The left likes to prevaricate the issue by claiming that government employees are down under Obama but then using data including "all" government employees state and local. Federal employees are up, period.

They're up a little bit and it's a good thing. Or you can disagree with me and explain why you think the increase in assets in defense and the war on terror are a bad idea. Insisting that the facts behind the number don't matter makes you sound dumb as shit.

Obama has already cut the military 500 billion, before the sequestration.

And it's still fully functional? GREAT!

 

[Busybody]

... and it's because of increased defense spending that the GOP wanted. What part of that are you against?

you keep saying that

SHOW US

 

[koalabear]

Market cuts gains ahead of Fed

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

you keep saying that

SHOW US

The annual budget for executive branch departments originates in the House.

 

[LadyVer]

He stays on Iggy until that missing clue that keeps him from posting gibberish is finally found.

I'm sure your nemesis has the same thoughts, Monsieur Vette.


BTW, according to Andy Borowitz, Hillary is expected to win the Presidency in 2016 because the GOP can't get their act together. I don't know where he gets his ideas.

On another note, France's 75% tax rule on the wealthy is causing quite a stir and some are wondering why those like Depardieu are fleeing. Quelle surprise. Depardieu was overheard to repeatedly cry "Merde" and "Vive la liberte".

xo
BB a special x to you.

 

[mercury14]

I'll answer my questions to you since you're incompetent.

1) What cuts are you talking about and how did Obama get them past congress?

Obama didn't get them past congress. They originated in the House with the rest of the military appropriations bills, in conjunction with military leadership.

2) What decreased capability?

We would not have a force standing around waiting to invade and occupy two countries at once (without another draw-up).

3) Why didn't half a trillion dollars in cuts register in the deficit?

They have. That's part of the reason the deficit has been decreasing a bit.