Mouth-breather? You're the idiot (and I quoted for posterity) that just stated that 500 gov't employees represent "billions" off the federal payroll. Let's assume "billions" just represents 2 billion. These employees were each making 4 million? Mouth-breather, indeed. Go back to school Einstein.
Unless you believe that the entire federal government has about 22,500 employees, you're misreading the graph a bit. Turn your 500 employees into 500,000 employees. At $50,000 per year, that's $25 billion. Try again.
I mistakenly said "federal" instead of just "government". Many of them were teaching, as an example. You'll notice it 20 years down the line...
It can always get worse. But regardless, I'm not arguing that the cuts to the federal payroll are a bad thing. Just pointing out that RR totally misread the same graph he was criticizing someone else for.
Alright, I'll agree that I missed the (thou) in the left column. But that also means that roughly 10% of our workforce is employed by us. It's time to severely cut back and refocus; especially when one of the PRIMARY focuses of Gov't is supposed to be infrastructure, and that is deteriorating so rapidly that we're going to see the consequences in our lifetime. Gov't spending needs to be reset. Period.
That chart includes state and local government employees I believe (or else the numbers are to high). Obama has increased the number of federal jobs by 58,000 according to politifact's analysis of the Bureau of Labor Stats. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/ Obama should get no credit in any decrease in the number of state and local employees.
bacially you donkey are your deal leader have failed 100% so far. am i glad... NO? but we told you so
I'm just glad that our Harvard Law Review president is showing such great command of macroeconomics. You go Obama with your 29 straight months of 8% or more unemployment! You just don't those kind of outstanding results with the short bus crowd.
May I kindly remind you who ran two wars with a running deficit and reduced taxes to boot... the party of "fiscal responsibility".
Unemployment was less than 8% when Obama was elected president. National debt was 3 trillion dollars lower.
Well, gwayneco, with your astute knowledge of economics, what should have been done? And how would a Republican president have been better? FYI, no Republican president in the last 30 years has run a surplus. Ever.
reduce the deficit so as to create a stable economic environment. The stimulus does the opposite of this. A massive slush fund for bailing out whoever the government chooses is not a stable environment. No Democrat-led Congress has produced a balanced budget in 40 years. From 1998-2001 the Republican-led Congress produced a balanced federal budget every year. Which Clinton/Bush signed.
