Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 Next

Topic: Overgrowing government, another media myth?
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 11:02 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 01/14/12 11:39 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ You posted this on purpose?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 11:41 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ You posted this on purpose? of course, but folks arent as interested apparently as they are in the BAZILLION commentaries and campaign spins screaming about how big and out of hand our government has 'become'

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 01/14/12 11:47 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ You posted this on purpose? of course, but folks arent as interested apparently as they are in the BAZILLION commentaries and campaign spins screaming about how big and out of hand our government has 'become' I am 41 and I know the government is bigger now than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Each decade it gets bigger!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 11:50 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ You posted this on purpose? of course, but folks arent as interested apparently as they are in the BAZILLION commentaries and campaign spins screaming about how big and out of hand our government has 'become' I am 41 and I know the government is bigger now than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Each decade it gets bigger! in other words,, ,ignore the actual data regarding employment figures,,,,,, unless it pertains to unemployment?

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 01/14/12 11:55 AM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ You posted this on purpose? of course, but folks arent as interested apparently as they are in the BAZILLION commentaries and campaign spins screaming about how big and out of hand our government has 'become' I am 41 and I know the government is bigger now than it was in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Each decade it gets bigger! in other words,, ,ignore the actual data regarding employment figures,,,,,, unless it pertains to unemployment? What does UE have to do with the ever growing government?

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Sat 01/14/12 11:56 AM Edited by heavenlyboy34 on Sat 01/14/12 11:56 AM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 12:07 PM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754 the issue of the ECONOMY is a seperate one and should stay the focus but too often the scapegoat syndrome merely seeks to divide and blame people or groups,,, so cuts to an ALREADY small government payroll are seen as a correction to the debt, when so many other things are contributing to it which would make more of a difference if addressed,

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sat 01/14/12 12:09 PM
How many Czars, Barry has again?

boredinaz06 Joined Sun 10/15/06 Posts: 22764	Sat 01/14/12 12:17 PM
I would love to stay and kvetch but I need to move into the other room for the UofA game, might take me some time because my back is jacked up real bad so I have to treat it delicately like the herniated scrotum of an older gentleman.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 12:25 PM
How many Czars, Barry has again? since its more a media title than official, I guess it depends upon whom you ask or believe http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/ but, as I said, since CZAR is not an official title or job label, I can imagine we can label any administration position a 'czar' position,, and debate into infinity,, ,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 01/14/12 12:25 PM
I would love to stay and kvetch but I need to move into the other room for the UofA game, might take me some time because my back is jacked up real bad so I have to treat it delicately like the herniated scrotum of an older gentleman. you're a University of Akron fan?.... jk

Stargazzer250 Joined Mon 12/05/11 Posts: 202	Sat 01/14/12 01:07 PM
How about comparing the civilian unemployment to employed government personnel ratio's for eras you stated. Oh, and can anyone explain what happened during the Clinton era (other than lying under oath about sex. Great role model there) or did you fail to figure him into the equation? OMB, is that the same OMB, that couldn't make their mind up regarding numbers supplied by Peloosie and her entourage over Obama Care? OMB only deals with numbers given and as Slick Willy showed us all, only give em what you think they asked for and it'll all be good. Question is, "Good for whom?" Imagine that, some of us don't forget.

Seakolony Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 11968	Sat 01/14/12 01:31 PM Edited by Seakolony on Sat 01/14/12 01:32 PM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ If in fact, the current administration doesn't believe we have too much government, why does the Obama administration propose merging several agencies together, effectively eliminating 1000 governmental positions in the process? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-combining-agencies-to-shrink-federal-government/2012/01/13/gIQAHsLqvP_story.html

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Sat 01/14/12 02:11 PM Edited by heavenlyboy34 on Sat 01/14/12 02:11 PM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754 the issue of the ECONOMY is a seperate one and should stay the focus but too often the scapegoat syndrome merely seeks to divide and blame people or groups,,, so cuts to an ALREADY small government payroll are seen as a correction to the debt, when so many other things are contributing to it which would make more of a difference if addressed, How is economy a "separate issue"? Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? Congress certainly isn't spending its own members' money!

Bravalady Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 1034	Sat 01/14/12 02:20 PM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754 the issue of the ECONOMY is a seperate one and should stay the focus but too often the scapegoat syndrome merely seeks to divide and blame people or groups,,, so cuts to an ALREADY small government payroll are seen as a correction to the debt, when so many other things are contributing to it which would make more of a difference if addressed, How is economy a "separate issue"? Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? Congress certainly isn't spending its own members' money! Ooo, ooo, ooo, a cure! You are a genius!

heavenlyboy34 Joined Fri 07/04/08 Posts: 17348	Sat 01/14/12 02:48 PM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754 the issue of the ECONOMY is a seperate one and should stay the focus but too often the scapegoat syndrome merely seeks to divide and blame people or groups,,, so cuts to an ALREADY small government payroll are seen as a correction to the debt, when so many other things are contributing to it which would make more of a difference if addressed, How is economy a "separate issue"? Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? Congress certainly isn't spending its own members' money! Ooo, ooo, ooo, a cure! You are a genius! Indeed! I've long been in favor of a Separation Of Government And Money. (competing currencies) That way, congress can't rob people and the FED can't inflate savings away. Let Congress pay their own bills with their own money!

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Sat 01/14/12 04:07 PM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ Using a post on a blog taken from a post on a blog is less than convincing.. Obviously not included by either blogger or you is the fact that the DOD is counted within the executive branch and considering the military was much larger during the cold war it would be rather obvious the numbers for full time employees would be higher.. Nice try though..

Bravalady Joined Sun 01/01/12 Posts: 1034	Sat 01/14/12 06:33 PM Edited by Bravalady on Sat 01/14/12 06:33 PM
No matter how you spin it, the government is ridiculously overblown. See http://usdebtclock.org/ In Q2 2009 alone, total debt outstanding in the United States — financial plus nonfinancial debt — amounted to 373.4% of GDP. That is not sustainable. Here's a good article by Thorston Polleit (Honorary Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance & Management) from 2009, including plenty of graphs: http://mises.org/daily/3754 the issue of the ECONOMY is a seperate one and should stay the focus but too often the scapegoat syndrome merely seeks to divide and blame people or groups,,, so cuts to an ALREADY small government payroll are seen as a correction to the debt, when so many other things are contributing to it which would make more of a difference if addressed, How is economy a "separate issue"? Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? Congress certainly isn't spending its own members' money! Ooo, ooo, ooo, a cure! You are a genius! Indeed! I've long been in favor of a Separation Of Government And Money. (competing currencies) That way, congress can't rob people and the FED can't inflate savings away. Let Congress pay their own bills with their own money! Of course, it occurs to me now that we'd be stuck with even richer candidates if they knew they had to pay. . . . And you know, rich people know how to avoid paying for anything they don't absolutely have to. They wouldn't just be sucking up to lobbyists, they'd BE the lobbyists. While still in office, I mean. Sigh. It sounded good. What the heck do you mean, separate currencies? That makes me uneasy.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Sat 01/14/12 09:32 PM
What if a large mass of American people believed something that was a total distortion? Impossible, you say? Well, there’s this OMG-moment from the OMB–that’s the number-crunching department within the executive branch. Using OMB data, Washington Post’s reporter Ed O’Keefe recently dropped the following info-bomb in his Federal Eye column: Relative to the population of the country, the federal government employs fewer people than at any time since before 1962. That means the effective size of the government during Obama is lower than both Bushes, small-government hero Reagan, Ford and Nixon, who ran the biggest government than any president in more than half a century. In fact, even when not taking the massive population growth of the country into effect, Obama’s federal government employs fewer people (in absolute terms) than George Bush, Reagan–yes, that Reagan–Ford and Nixon. So here’s O’Keefe’s actual breakdown. (And read it and weep, Speaker Boehner.) ,,,see the chart at http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/116911-the-federal-government-is-smaller-now-than-in-past-49-years/ I'm not at all surprised at this. I have never heard anyone say "The US government just keeps employing more and more people each decade - this is horrible!" When people speak of how the 'size of our government' is too large, IME, they are not speaking of the percentage of our population that is directly employed by the government, they are either talking about the degree of involvement the government has in our lives, or the amount of money that the government is controlling. Size = influence, size = budget. This should not come as any surprise at all. Its the same with corporations and non-profit groups. "Size" very often means stock value, net influence, percentage of market, only rarely (in conversations about employment rates, maybe) does it mean 'number of people employed'. To take the issue of 'how large our government has become' and pretend that everyone is always actually talking about '% of population that are directly employed' rather than power, influence, or finances is equivocation.