According to a video I just viewed from a site with the colorful title http://www.governmentgonewild.org, private-sector jobs in our country grew only 1% in the last decade while government jobs grew 15%.
What does this have to do with Obama? From Table B-1 of the BLS Employment Situation News Releases:
1) Private employment in Jan of 2009 was at the low end of the Great Recession. By Jan of 2013, we are supposed to be over a year and a half (longer, if you believe the administration) into a recovery. So from the worst part of the recession to now we are looking at a total of 1% private sector growth?
2) Government jobs data includes all government jobs….state and local, as well as Federal. Obama has no impact whatsoever (unless you count money given to states and localities to specifically employ people, which is in fact what happened with much of the stimulus money that was supposed to be going into ‘shovel ready’ projects) on the non-Federal jobs. In any event, I would be delighted to see those govt numbers drop a LOT further….
3) The population has increased substantially more than 1% in the 4 years covered in your two sample points, which means that private sector growth in jobs has not even kept up with ‘natural increase’….yep, another feather in the administrations hat!
4) The percentage of full time employed adults has been declining steadily throughout the administration’s tenure. It is LOWER than it was when Barry O took office. Explain to me again how this works?
As far as the administration overseeing all private sector growth in this decade, he has been the ONLY president in this decade….hardly much competition….
Look, I know you like the guy, but you can certainly do better than this…
“Look, I know you like the guy, but you can certainly do better than this…”
No, Jim cannot do any better than that. One has to read all the data and not cherry pick certain data points…one has to read a variety of sources and not just hideously lefty-biased ones.
Jim, have you tried cross referencing your BLS data with the US Census? Otherwise, Gregg is correct that one must read a variety of sources and not just a single datum that serves the purpose of your hideous lefty-bias?
one must read a variety of sources and not just a single datum
And yet you post below using a single datum from the Office of Personnel Management, because you (incorrectly, it turns out) think it supports your anti-Obama bias.
Also, wasn’t a lot of recent private sector hiring due to companies reducing hours for existing staff and hiring new ones to fill in the gaps, so they didn’t have to pay for Obamacare?
I’m guessing the people whose income dropped 20% when their hours were cut aren’t too happy.
Private employment in Jan of 2009 was at the low end of the Great Recession.
No, the bottom came later. Just look at the BLS reports.
So from the worst part of the recession to now we are looking at a total of 1% private sector growth?
Obama has no impact whatsoever (unless you count money given to states and localities to specifically employ people
See, you fixed that for yourself!
The population has increased substantially more than 1% in the 4 years covered
Yes, and there was even more population growth in the six years before Obama took over, during which there was zero job growth (“private-sector jobs in our country grew only 1% in the last decade”). So why is Simon complaining about Obama?
The percentage of full time employed adults has been declining steadily
That was true of his predecessors as well. What does it have to do with Obama and “single party rule”?
The low end does not mean the LOWEST end….I assume you took Jan 2009 to Jan 2013 to give a four year window, so you couldn’t get quite the lowest data point to work with. Gerrib would have found the lowest possible point to work from, you are a bit smarter than that. This doesn’t change much though, you are still using artificial comparison points, and the numbers are still dismal.
Regarding your (inevitable) comparison to the previous six years….why not look at the previous 8 years? Oh wait…that would mean starting from the onset of the previous recession at the end of Billy Jeff’s administration (which PREDATED Bush), rather than at the peak of Bush’s recovery. Once again, you are carefully selecting your comparison points. In any event, I am not making the case for Bush (who spent far too much, was too regulation friendly for my taste, and had to cope with a Pelosi and Reid dominated congress for the last two years of his administration), I thought we were talking about Obama. Simon was talking about Obama’s incompetence, not holding up Bush as a paragon. Unfortunately you don’t seem to be able to defend Obama without the typical six year-old’s response “The other guy was worse!” Perhaps he was (though that is a different debate), but it doesn’t make Obama even a bit better….
As for the Government employment numbers, you seem to treat my point that Obama doesn’t control state and local government spending as an ‘ah-ha’, when in fact it only weakens your own point. The stimulus was overwhelmingly skewed in favor of keeping those employees on the public teat by underwriting the spending with federal dollars. When it (the stimulus money), so did the jobs. Short of a permanent set of grants to the states (which would have given the game away, and would never have passed), there was no other result possible. This only reinforces my point that Obama has no idea of how to create jobs in the private sector, and can only attempt to create make-work positions in the public sector to compensate. In fact, this is an almost perfect experimental proof of the postulate….
As for the percentage of full time employed, the numbers have been declinging for quite some time, but not at this rate, and not among the groups where we see it declining now. More to the point, Obama was supposed to be different (by his own claims), and we are looking at unprecedently high levels of spending and regulation passed almost en masse by a congress which in 2009/2010 was almost monolithically Democratic (hence one-party rule). The situation is getting worse, by every measure that one cares to use, and this is precisely the opposite of what Obama and his crew said would happen. Much more to the point, there is little or no evidence that any significant improvement is in the cards, or that Obama has any idea of how to engender such improvement. Unless you want to make the argument that we are going to go from a 2005 norm of ~5% unemployment to a 2013 norm of ~8% unemployment (for example) as a permanent condition, you have to accept the argument that Obama simply isn’t very good at what he claimed he would be good at.
Repeating….we get the fact you like the guy, but surely you can do better than this. I dont’ agree with you much, but you strike me as a bit brighter than fools like Gerrib….prove it!
I assume you took Jan 2009 to Jan 2013 to give a four year window
I took 1/2009 because the linked article is about Obama, and that’s when Obama was sworn in.
you are still using artificial comparison points
What’s artificial about inauguration day?
why not look at the previous 8 years?
Because the linked article, which I quoted, referred to the last decade. 10 – 4 = 6. You are imagining motives out of thin air.
Simon was talking about Obama’s incompetence, not holding up Bush as a paragon
He was accusing Obama of doing things (e.g. increasing the government payroll) that he didn’t do, by blaming Obama for things that happened while Bush was president (“in the last decade”). If he wants to attack Obama’s competence, he should stick to things that Obama actually did.
my point that Obama doesn’t control state and local government spending
You refuted your own point. Obama had a large effect on state and local government spending. A different president and/or Congress would have had a different effect.
If you really think this is an important point, then do tell us how much Obama increased the federal payroll, compared to Bush, or other presidents, and how that supports Simon’s case against Obama. I predict that you won’t find anything.
Unfortunately you don’t seem to be able to defend Obama without the typical six year-old’s response “The other guy was worse!”
There’s an old vaudeville joke where someone asks a guy “How’s your wife?”, and he answers: “Compared to what?”
That question — “compared to what?” — is the most important question facing anyone making a political or policy decision. I know that you don’t like being reminded how badly things went the last time the Republicans were in charge, but any evaluation of Obama and the Democrats has to start with that question: compared to what? The choice facing voters isn’t between Obama and some imaginary ideal president who has the secret to reversing decades of falling labor force participation. The choice is between Obama and the party of George W. Bush, led by people like John Boehner and Paul Ryan, who voted for all of Bush’s economic policies. No one should consider that choice without considering Bush’s economic record.
we get the fact you like the guy, but surely you can do better than this
And I get that Simon and Rand don’t like the guy, but surely they can do better than attacking him for things that happened before January, 2009.
you don’t like being reminded how badly things went the last time the Republicans were in charge
Actually, things were doing all right the last time Republicans were in charge, in 2006, though it could have been a lot better. They started going south when the Democrats took over Congress.
So the voters ended 12 years of GOP Congressional control because “things were doing all right”?
Supposedly the voters ended 12 years of GOP Congressional control, because the Democrats said they would end the evil wars, stop unwarranted wire taps, and close Gitmo.
We still have one war. Now the President can not only listen in to phone calls without a warrant, he can kill you without judicial approval too! Oh, and Gitmo is still there. Oh, and the number of military personnel has increased, so there’s that too.
I don’t agree that the GOP lost Congress over wars, wiretaps, and Gitmo. After all, they won in 2002 and 2004 on those exact issues.
I personally wish that the Democrats had done more on those issues, but Obama is finally ending the wars, and would have closed Gitmo if it weren’t for Republican opposition. Continued wiretapping and drones are a real disappointment.
The point remains: the people didn’t like the way Republicans were running things in 2006. Rand acts as if everything was great until Pelosi got the gavel, but the voters clearly disagree — which is of course how she got the gavel.
Jim, if McCain hadn’t screwed it up, Sarah would have carried him over the finish line. The media knew this and attacked her like no other before.
The reason we get people like McCain is because the media makes sure anyone else is ‘stupid’, ‘extreme’, ‘has no fire in the belly’ or whatever tagline they can come up with that they can make seem to fit. It’s blatant. It’s obvious. The mandarins in the GOP go along with it.
We cheer the fight in Christie, but then notice he breaks the 11th commandment and cozies up with Obama.
Rand Paul didn’t have to do much and all of a sudden the tea party is relevant again. They’ve always been relevant, but they have to swim upstream against the treasonous media at all times.
We agree with you about the evils of the right. Unlike you, we don’t make fantasy up about how good the left are.
Jim, if McCain hadn’t screwed it up, Sarah would have carried him over the finish line.
In the middle of an epic financial crisis? There’s no way a Republican could have won in 2008 — the economy was collapsing, and the voters wanted a change, even more than in 2006.
If Palin was a great leader, she’d be doing something other than preaching to her Facebook choir.
The reason we get people like McCain is because the media
I live in NH, and have watched every presidential primary campaign up close since 1988. McCain got the nomination despite formidable political baggage because the rest of the candidates were even worse. Same with Romney. The voters flirted with Huckabee, Thompson, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry — they were all duds. The media didn’t make them bad candidates, they were bad candidates all along. As soon as any of the 2012 candidates made any headway, Romney would unleash his negative SuperPAC ads, and the flavor-of-the-week would immediately wilt as the ads reminded voters of all of that candidate’s obvious flaws.
Rand Paul didn’t have to do much and all of a sudden the tea party is relevant again
The tea party was supposedly about spending cuts, and their influence peaked in 2011. Their legacy is the debt ceiling disaster and the sequester that was passed to escape it. The tea party message was thoroughly repudiated by the voters in 2012, and the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal had no spending cuts.
Rand Paul got some fleeting attention for bringing attention to drone strikes. The GOP can become isolationist when there’s a Democrat in the White House (Serbia, Kosovo, Libya, etc.). Once there’s a Republican president again the GOP hawks will be back in charge.
2008 – 4,206k federal employees
2009 – 4,430k federal employees
2010 – 4,443k federal employees
2011 – 4,403k federal employees
Oh sure, it shrunk when the GOP took back the House, but Obama still has a much larger federal employee count than Bush. Let us know if you want us to look at the previous 8 years to see how much smaller the federal government workforce was.
Following your link, we learn that the federal executive branch civilian workforce went down from 2,774k in 2009 to 2,756k in 2011. All the growth you are pointing to either happened in 2008 (when Bush was president), or was in the uniformed military.
By contrast, the federal civilian workforce shrank under Clinton, and grew under Bush:
Clinton (93-01): -307k
Bush (01-09): +134k
Obama (09-11): -18k
You have a mental model in which Democrats make government bigger, and Republicans make it smaller. That model does not match the facts.
Um Jim, Bush was President in ’09 for 20 days. Did you read the footnote at the link?
Data comes from agency 113 monthly submissions and covers total end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time, and intermittent employees.
Jim, are you claiming Bush was President at the end of 2009?
No, I hadn’t seen that footnote, thanks for the pointer. That makes the figures:
Clinton (92-00): -378K
Bush (00-08): +53K
Obama (08-11): +64K
So the federal civilian workforce shrank under Clinton, and grew under both Bush and Obama. I’m still not seeing a pattern of Democrats dramatically expanding the federal government and Republicans shrinking it.
So now that you are showing you concern for the growth of government, I’m sure you’ll vote Republican during the mid-terms. Obama isn’t up for election in 2014.
And note Jim, I realize you decided to narrow your discussion to the civilian workforce. I’ve been using the entire federal payroll. But the numbers are just smaller, the changes are the same.
The more interesting thing is how you are arguing that Democrats are for smaller government, but ignoring that Democrats are arguing to spend more on “infrastructure”. Well, you’re making that argument here. In another thread, you are saying we shouldn’t move to Austerity, which is doublespeak for living in a government spending less. A smaller government cannot impose thrift on anything other than itself. Obama, who lives off the government, may have less golf outings, but my life and most others are unchanged or improving. I credit the minority opposition for holding the line on government growth. They are not perfect, but they are a damn sight better than Obama and Pelosi.
Back to the original post–we already have one-party rule. Dems or Repubs, 99% of them are statists. They enjoy ruling the rest of us, and we should just shut up and vote for whoever the boys in the back rooms have chosen. For our own good, of course.
For one to use government employment numbers from 2009 and 2013 to show a downward trend is false logic, inasmuch as the vast majority of Census employees are no longer working in 2013, though they would have been employed in 2009-2011.
Sigh. It would help if you did a little research before posting arguments like this. It took me about 30 seconds to find the BLS report on census hiring, and there you see that there were only 5,000 census jobs as of January, 2009 (the major hiring didn’t start until 2010). So out of the 676,000 government jobs lost under Obama, only 5,000, or 0.7%, were census jobs.
To put that in perspective, the February job report came out this morning, and it shows us losing 10,000 government jobs last month alone. By contrast, we gained 246,000 private sector jobs last month.
According to a video I just viewed from a site with the colorful title http://www.governmentgonewild.org, private-sector jobs in our country grew only 1% in the last decade while government jobs grew 15%.
What does this have to do with Obama? From Table B-1 of the BLS Employment Situation News Releases:
January 2009 Private employment: 111,793k
January 2013 Private employment: 112,961k
Change: +1%
January 2009 Government employment: 22,540k
January 2013 Government employment: 21,864k
Change: -3%
In other words, Obama’s overseen all the private sector job growth of the last decade, and a 700,000 reduction in the government payroll. Socialism!
Nice try Jim, but it doesn’t wash….
1) Private employment in Jan of 2009 was at the low end of the Great Recession. By Jan of 2013, we are supposed to be over a year and a half (longer, if you believe the administration) into a recovery. So from the worst part of the recession to now we are looking at a total of 1% private sector growth?
2) Government jobs data includes all government jobs….state and local, as well as Federal. Obama has no impact whatsoever (unless you count money given to states and localities to specifically employ people, which is in fact what happened with much of the stimulus money that was supposed to be going into ‘shovel ready’ projects) on the non-Federal jobs. In any event, I would be delighted to see those govt numbers drop a LOT further….
3) The population has increased substantially more than 1% in the 4 years covered in your two sample points, which means that private sector growth in jobs has not even kept up with ‘natural increase’….yep, another feather in the administrations hat!
4) The percentage of full time employed adults has been declining steadily throughout the administration’s tenure. It is LOWER than it was when Barry O took office. Explain to me again how this works?
As far as the administration overseeing all private sector growth in this decade, he has been the ONLY president in this decade….hardly much competition….
Look, I know you like the guy, but you can certainly do better than this…
Fibonacci wrote:
“Look, I know you like the guy, but you can certainly do better than this…”
No, Jim cannot do any better than that. One has to read all the data and not cherry pick certain data points…one has to read a variety of sources and not just hideously lefty-biased ones.
Most of all, one must have an open mind.
He tried it. His brains fell out.
I’m stealing that line.
one has to read a variety of sources and not just hideously lefty-biased ones
Like the Bureau of Labor Statistics!?! Are you a BLS truther?
Jim, have you tried cross referencing your BLS data with the US Census? Otherwise, Gregg is correct that one must read a variety of sources and not just a single datum that serves the purpose of your hideous lefty-bias?
one must read a variety of sources and not just a single datum
And yet you post below using a single datum from the Office of Personnel Management, because you (incorrectly, it turns out) think it supports your anti-Obama bias.
I admit Jim, I went to BLS, your datum, and it directed me to OPM. Alas, you didn’t read the footnote which is why you think my bias in anti-Obama.
Also, wasn’t a lot of recent private sector hiring due to companies reducing hours for existing staff and hiring new ones to fill in the gaps, so they didn’t have to pay for Obamacare?
I’m guessing the people whose income dropped 20% when their hours were cut aren’t too happy.
Private employment in Jan of 2009 was at the low end of the Great Recession.
No, the bottom came later. Just look at the BLS reports.
So from the worst part of the recession to now we are looking at a total of 1% private sector growth?
Obama has no impact whatsoever (unless you count money given to states and localities to specifically employ people
See, you fixed that for yourself!
The population has increased substantially more than 1% in the 4 years covered
Yes, and there was even more population growth in the six years before Obama took over, during which there was zero job growth (“private-sector jobs in our country grew only 1% in the last decade”). So why is Simon complaining about Obama?
The percentage of full time employed adults has been declining steadily
That was true of his predecessors as well. What does it have to do with Obama and “single party rule”?
Where to begin….
The low end does not mean the LOWEST end….I assume you took Jan 2009 to Jan 2013 to give a four year window, so you couldn’t get quite the lowest data point to work with. Gerrib would have found the lowest possible point to work from, you are a bit smarter than that. This doesn’t change much though, you are still using artificial comparison points, and the numbers are still dismal.
Regarding your (inevitable) comparison to the previous six years….why not look at the previous 8 years? Oh wait…that would mean starting from the onset of the previous recession at the end of Billy Jeff’s administration (which PREDATED Bush), rather than at the peak of Bush’s recovery. Once again, you are carefully selecting your comparison points. In any event, I am not making the case for Bush (who spent far too much, was too regulation friendly for my taste, and had to cope with a Pelosi and Reid dominated congress for the last two years of his administration), I thought we were talking about Obama. Simon was talking about Obama’s incompetence, not holding up Bush as a paragon. Unfortunately you don’t seem to be able to defend Obama without the typical six year-old’s response “The other guy was worse!” Perhaps he was (though that is a different debate), but it doesn’t make Obama even a bit better….
As for the Government employment numbers, you seem to treat my point that Obama doesn’t control state and local government spending as an ‘ah-ha’, when in fact it only weakens your own point. The stimulus was overwhelmingly skewed in favor of keeping those employees on the public teat by underwriting the spending with federal dollars. When it (the stimulus money), so did the jobs. Short of a permanent set of grants to the states (which would have given the game away, and would never have passed), there was no other result possible. This only reinforces my point that Obama has no idea of how to create jobs in the private sector, and can only attempt to create make-work positions in the public sector to compensate. In fact, this is an almost perfect experimental proof of the postulate….
As for the percentage of full time employed, the numbers have been declinging for quite some time, but not at this rate, and not among the groups where we see it declining now. More to the point, Obama was supposed to be different (by his own claims), and we are looking at unprecedently high levels of spending and regulation passed almost en masse by a congress which in 2009/2010 was almost monolithically Democratic (hence one-party rule). The situation is getting worse, by every measure that one cares to use, and this is precisely the opposite of what Obama and his crew said would happen. Much more to the point, there is little or no evidence that any significant improvement is in the cards, or that Obama has any idea of how to engender such improvement. Unless you want to make the argument that we are going to go from a 2005 norm of ~5% unemployment to a 2013 norm of ~8% unemployment (for example) as a permanent condition, you have to accept the argument that Obama simply isn’t very good at what he claimed he would be good at.
Repeating….we get the fact you like the guy, but surely you can do better than this. I dont’ agree with you much, but you strike me as a bit brighter than fools like Gerrib….prove it!
I assume you took Jan 2009 to Jan 2013 to give a four year window
I took 1/2009 because the linked article is about Obama, and that’s when Obama was sworn in.
you are still using artificial comparison points
What’s artificial about inauguration day?
why not look at the previous 8 years?
Because the linked article, which I quoted, referred to the last decade. 10 – 4 = 6. You are imagining motives out of thin air.
Simon was talking about Obama’s incompetence, not holding up Bush as a paragon
He was accusing Obama of doing things (e.g. increasing the government payroll) that he didn’t do, by blaming Obama for things that happened while Bush was president (“in the last decade”). If he wants to attack Obama’s competence, he should stick to things that Obama actually did.
my point that Obama doesn’t control state and local government spending
You refuted your own point. Obama had a large effect on state and local government spending. A different president and/or Congress would have had a different effect.
If you really think this is an important point, then do tell us how much Obama increased the federal payroll, compared to Bush, or other presidents, and how that supports Simon’s case against Obama. I predict that you won’t find anything.
Unfortunately you don’t seem to be able to defend Obama without the typical six year-old’s response “The other guy was worse!”
There’s an old vaudeville joke where someone asks a guy “How’s your wife?”, and he answers: “Compared to what?”
That question — “compared to what?” — is the most important question facing anyone making a political or policy decision. I know that you don’t like being reminded how badly things went the last time the Republicans were in charge, but any evaluation of Obama and the Democrats has to start with that question: compared to what? The choice facing voters isn’t between Obama and some imaginary ideal president who has the secret to reversing decades of falling labor force participation. The choice is between Obama and the party of George W. Bush, led by people like John Boehner and Paul Ryan, who voted for all of Bush’s economic policies. No one should consider that choice without considering Bush’s economic record.
we get the fact you like the guy, but surely you can do better than this
And I get that Simon and Rand don’t like the guy, but surely they can do better than attacking him for things that happened before January, 2009.
you don’t like being reminded how badly things went the last time the Republicans were in charge
Actually, things were doing all right the last time Republicans were in charge, in 2006, though it could have been a lot better. They started going south when the Democrats took over Congress.
things were doing all right the last time Republicans were in charge, in 2006
So the voters ended 12 years of GOP Congressional control because “things were doing all right”?
It’s funny how Obama is responsible for everything that’s happened since 2009 (and some things before that!), while Bush gets off the hook for 2007-9.
So the voters ended 12 years of GOP Congressional control because “things were doing all right”?
Supposedly the voters ended 12 years of GOP Congressional control, because the Democrats said they would end the evil wars, stop unwarranted wire taps, and close Gitmo.
We still have one war. Now the President can not only listen in to phone calls without a warrant, he can kill you without judicial approval too! Oh, and Gitmo is still there. Oh, and the number of military personnel has increased, so there’s that too.
I don’t agree that the GOP lost Congress over wars, wiretaps, and Gitmo. After all, they won in 2002 and 2004 on those exact issues.
I personally wish that the Democrats had done more on those issues, but Obama is finally ending the wars, and would have closed Gitmo if it weren’t for Republican opposition. Continued wiretapping and drones are a real disappointment.
The point remains: the people didn’t like the way Republicans were running things in 2006. Rand acts as if everything was great until Pelosi got the gavel, but the voters clearly disagree — which is of course how she got the gavel.
Jim, if McCain hadn’t screwed it up, Sarah would have carried him over the finish line. The media knew this and attacked her like no other before.
The reason we get people like McCain is because the media makes sure anyone else is ‘stupid’, ‘extreme’, ‘has no fire in the belly’ or whatever tagline they can come up with that they can make seem to fit. It’s blatant. It’s obvious. The mandarins in the GOP go along with it.
We cheer the fight in Christie, but then notice he breaks the 11th commandment and cozies up with Obama.
Rand Paul didn’t have to do much and all of a sudden the tea party is relevant again. They’ve always been relevant, but they have to swim upstream against the treasonous media at all times.
We agree with you about the evils of the right. Unlike you, we don’t make fantasy up about how good the left are.
Jim, if McCain hadn’t screwed it up, Sarah would have carried him over the finish line.
In the middle of an epic financial crisis? There’s no way a Republican could have won in 2008 — the economy was collapsing, and the voters wanted a change, even more than in 2006.
If Palin was a great leader, she’d be doing something other than preaching to her Facebook choir.
The reason we get people like McCain is because the media
I live in NH, and have watched every presidential primary campaign up close since 1988. McCain got the nomination despite formidable political baggage because the rest of the candidates were even worse. Same with Romney. The voters flirted with Huckabee, Thompson, Pawlenty, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry — they were all duds. The media didn’t make them bad candidates, they were bad candidates all along. As soon as any of the 2012 candidates made any headway, Romney would unleash his negative SuperPAC ads, and the flavor-of-the-week would immediately wilt as the ads reminded voters of all of that candidate’s obvious flaws.
Rand Paul didn’t have to do much and all of a sudden the tea party is relevant again
The tea party was supposedly about spending cuts, and their influence peaked in 2011. Their legacy is the debt ceiling disaster and the sequester that was passed to escape it. The tea party message was thoroughly repudiated by the voters in 2012, and the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal had no spending cuts.
Rand Paul got some fleeting attention for bringing attention to drone strikes. The GOP can become isolationist when there’s a Democrat in the White House (Serbia, Kosovo, Libya, etc.). Once there’s a Republican president again the GOP hawks will be back in charge.
Their legacy is the debt ceiling disaster and the sequester that was passed to escape it.
So now the TEA party is being blamed for reaching the debt ceiling? Is there any lie you are not willing to tell, Jim?
Uh Jim, the BLS says Obama grew the size of the federal government.
2008 – 4,206k federal employees
2009 – 4,430k federal employees
2010 – 4,443k federal employees
2011 – 4,403k federal employees
Oh sure, it shrunk when the GOP took back the House, but Obama still has a much larger federal employee count than Bush. Let us know if you want us to look at the previous 8 years to see how much smaller the federal government workforce was.
Following your link, we learn that the federal executive branch civilian workforce went down from 2,774k in 2009 to 2,756k in 2011. All the growth you are pointing to either happened in 2008 (when Bush was president), or was in the uniformed military.
By contrast, the federal civilian workforce shrank under Clinton, and grew under Bush:
Clinton (93-01): -307k
Bush (01-09): +134k
Obama (09-11): -18k
You have a mental model in which Democrats make government bigger, and Republicans make it smaller. That model does not match the facts.
Um Jim, Bush was President in ’09 for 20 days. Did you read the footnote at the link?
Data comes from agency 113 monthly submissions and covers total end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time, and intermittent employees.
Jim, are you claiming Bush was President at the end of 2009?
No, I hadn’t seen that footnote, thanks for the pointer. That makes the figures:
Clinton (92-00): -378K
Bush (00-08): +53K
Obama (08-11): +64K
So the federal civilian workforce shrank under Clinton, and grew under both Bush and Obama. I’m still not seeing a pattern of Democrats dramatically expanding the federal government and Republicans shrinking it.
You would if you showed the numbers by who controlled the House:
GOP (95-06): -342
DNC (07-10): +270
GOP (11-): -40
So now that you are showing you concern for the growth of government, I’m sure you’ll vote Republican during the mid-terms. Obama isn’t up for election in 2014.
And note Jim, I realize you decided to narrow your discussion to the civilian workforce. I’ve been using the entire federal payroll. But the numbers are just smaller, the changes are the same.
The more interesting thing is how you are arguing that Democrats are for smaller government, but ignoring that Democrats are arguing to spend more on “infrastructure”. Well, you’re making that argument here. In another thread, you are saying we shouldn’t move to Austerity, which is doublespeak for living in a government spending less. A smaller government cannot impose thrift on anything other than itself. Obama, who lives off the government, may have less golf outings, but my life and most others are unchanged or improving. I credit the minority opposition for holding the line on government growth. They are not perfect, but they are a damn sight better than Obama and Pelosi.
“He clearly is always angry
that he has any political opposition whatsoever.”FTFY, Rand.
The game is over. Obama is simply in cleanup mode. I wait to see 2014.
Nazis is already taken. I wonder what they will call themselves.
Obama looked whistfully into the camera, “I am not a dictator.”
Back to the original post–we already have one-party rule. Dems or Repubs, 99% of them are statists. They enjoy ruling the rest of us, and we should just shut up and vote for whoever the boys in the back rooms have chosen. For our own good, of course.
For one to use government employment numbers from 2009 and 2013 to show a downward trend is false logic, inasmuch as the vast majority of Census employees are no longer working in 2013, though they would have been employed in 2009-2011.
Sigh. It would help if you did a little research before posting arguments like this. It took me about 30 seconds to find the BLS report on census hiring, and there you see that there were only 5,000 census jobs as of January, 2009 (the major hiring didn’t start until 2010). So out of the 676,000 government jobs lost under Obama, only 5,000, or 0.7%, were census jobs.
To put that in perspective, the February job report came out this morning, and it shows us losing 10,000 government jobs last month alone. By contrast, we gained 246,000 private sector jobs last month.
To put the 246,000 private sector job growth into perspective; 296,000 laborers gave up looking for a job last month.