America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Weird.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan

Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.

By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000

Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.

On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.

President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.

Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.

Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

Ha! No. Big government is actually one that gets in your private lives and restricts individual rights. But you never hear about that from the Republicans.

Over-spending is not really big government, it's a wasteful one with bad policies.

I guess that is Fuzz's attempt to deflect from the fact that Idi Amin Jr. Has increased the number of federal employees in ways that we haven't seen since WWII.

Under Bush 43, the number of employees hired by the executive branch (which is really the only place where the President does have power to hire or fire) remained relatively flat, is not modestly increased. This, of course, is expected when you are fighting a global war on terrorism, was well as two conventional ground wars.

Yes, Reagan's numbers increased, and Carter's numbers decreased. That's because - what Fuzzy doesn't take into consideration - Carter not only gutted the military, and military suppport people, he also gutted the CIA. This led to the Iranian revolution, ousting of the Shah, and so on.

So Reagan replenished those ranks.

Under Carter, the number of people hired into the civilian agencies actually went up, not down. Consequently, under Reagan, the number of people staffed at the civilian agencies went DOWN, not up.

Total federal employment, the numbers Fuzzy Wuzzy relies so heavily upon, also includes Postal workers who are a) quasi-government workers, and b) are proportional to population (the more people you have getting mail, the more postal workers you need to distribute it).;

Consequently, looking at the same numbers, LBJ expanded the number of non-military employees, as did JFK, and Truman. Eisenhower actually lowered the number of Executive branch employees during his term.

And what the numbers also don't show - which is why a idiot liberal is using these numbers in the first place - is the pay scale given to these emploees. During Carter and Reagan's time, federal compensation (salaries) were far lower when what they're receiving today. This was due to the generous pension afforded to government employees, and the low pay was seen as a trade-off for the excellent retirement plan. Nowadays, they get both generous pay AND benefits, which makes additional employment even more costly.

And in no way shape or form do the numbers excuse the almost obscene levels that Idi Amin Jr. has raised both pay, benefits, and number of employees on the government role. Which is, I think, the point of Fuzzie's original post in the first place: a means to excuse his messiah from the obvious wrongdoing that is being commited against the American taxpayer.

So, in short, Fuzz is too dumb to realize that the thing he is "reporting" is both misleading and wrong.

Then again, how it this any different from anything else Fuzz "reports"?

(Fuzz - do us all a favor and get a job you lazy, stinky hippie...)

You should edit this thread to make it a poll. The title will play well for that.

LMAO at the subject of this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such a valiant warrior......

You have not provided anything that shows these numbers to be wrong, or an argument as to how it doesn't matter. All you've done is insult and boast.

Those facts are clear. To believe that the economy grow faster under Republican Presidents is to be a true believer because it requires faith, not facts and figures and that you've bought the spin.

You can claim victory and insult, fine with me, it just shows your level of critical thought and intelligence.

I'm sure with a little truth checking your "facts" can be refuted. If any of them interest me I will do so, and if I thought is was anything other than regurgitated talking points from the dailykos I might be interested.