Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the chart using just FEDERAL employees since that is what the discussion is about.
The way I'm looking at it if Krugman and knowledgeiskey want to credit Obama with the layoff of all these unionized employees at the state an local level let him take credit for it.
God, then how come you missed it? How about looking at 2006 and on since those were Bushes last years instead of cherry picking numbers?
year Executive/ Uniformed military/ Legislative and judicial / total Fed employees
2006 2,637.. 1,432 .. 63.. 4,133
2007 2,636.. 1,427 .. 63 ..4,127
2008 2,692.. 1,450 .. 64.. 4,206
2009 2,774.. 1,591 .. 66.. 4,430
2010 2,776.. 1,602 .. 64.. 4,443
Citizens Against Gov waste seem to disagree with the OP. They give Paul high scores and Obama/ Biden very low scores when it comes to spending fed money. Allow me to post a fewlinks showing that Gov waste is alive and well. 17 Examples of Government Waste
Not surprising Mr. Krugman had to instruct Mr. Rand Paul. Delusion does not fall far from the tree and he is just a deluded as his dad, Mr. Ron Paul. Both do not have any real grasp on current economics or politics.
No surprise its a bunch of liberals who think government shrunk, despite spending growing 15% over the last 3 years..
You guys never seem to know anything but want us to take you seriously.
Here's the chart using just FEDERAL employees since that is what the discussion is about.
Thats not at all whats being discussed. Where did Krugman say employees was the discussion? He said it SHRUNK and shrinking cant take place without reducing expenditures.
Thats not at all whats being discussed. Where did Krugman say employees was the discussion?
at the 53 second mark of the 1:16 video
statement:Are you arguing there are less Federal Employees under Obama than under Bush
answer: of course, that's a fact
then he talks about government employment growth
maybe you're talking about the overall show or overall big picture? dunno
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
He said it SHRUNK and shrinking cant take place without reducing expenditures.
I agree with this statement but the exchange in the video that we are discussing is specifically talking about employment.
The bottom line is that without Federal Defense spending our industrial sector would have completely collapsed in the last decade. I do not object to the spending but I do object to the products. Besides without government and private debt we would not have any economy at all. If everybody had to pay cash there would be no cash to spend.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
