Our workforce has shrunk and we brag

[texan]

In 2007 we had many more jobs than we do today, but because the politicians have so much at stake they will make the fuzzy math up as they go. It was eye opening earlier to watch Cigar brag about 6.3% unemployment. When the actual amount just based on 2007 number of jobs is about 11%.

Also, Obama calls himself a champion of the average person, but he has spent 1 trillion dollars on Trickle down economics. Thats right from the rich on down. He has pumped 1 trillion into the market to prop it up and who makes the money when this happens? The rich, yeah my 401K stays propped up but no one can touch that money.

The fed on his direction pumps that money in and lets it trickle down from the wealthy through however they spend it, investments, high priced items, whatever. But he will never admit that the market is propped up and the fat cats are making the quon.

But we get the bologna that Scott Walked is a Koch Brothers leach and some falsification of the employment facts. Truly a sad thing that 90% of us are speaking in sound bites from our favorite commentators.

[jillian]

In 2007 we had many more jobs than we do today, but because the politicians have so much at stake they will make the fuzzy math up as they go. It was eye opening earlier to watch Cigar brag about 6.3% unemployment. When the actual amount just based on 2007 number of jobs is about 11%.

Also, Obama calls himself a champion of the average person, but he has spent 1 trillion dollars on Trickle down economics. Thats right from the rich on down. He has pumped 1 trillion into the market to prop it up and who makes the money when this happens? The rich, yeah my 401K stays propped up but no one can touch that money.

The fed on his direction pumps that money in and lets it trickle down from the wealthy through however they spend it, investments, high priced items, whatever. But he will never admit that the market is propped up and the fat cats are making the quon.

But we get the bologna that Scott Walked is a Koch Brothers leach and some falsification of the employment facts. Truly a sad thing that 90% of us are speaking in sound bites from our favorite commentators.

every time you talk about "downsizing government" you're talking about jobs.

maybe you should look at how many federal employees have been laid off…

how many police officers…

how many firefighters…

how many teachers…

[texan]

I don't think I have mentioned downsizing here but I will play. You have the responsibility to manage investors / the peoples money responsibly. Not doing this has caused these problems. At some point it has to be fixed if you want a healthy state. Being irresponsible is not the answer no matter how well intended.

That said my post above is accurate. Do you think its right that politicians, in this case democrats, have a right to misrepresent employment or any other numbers to Americans? The problem is they have spent so much time pitting everyone against each other with talking points and cable news channels that no one stops and calls bologna. People need to start thinking for themselves or we will be boring stagnant Europe soon.

[Newpublius]

every time you talk about "downsizing government" you're talking about jobs.

The military makes jobs too and they fund it. On a per capita basis we spend in excess of $2,000 per person on the military. For you personally, that's 2K that they take from you (on average of course) and then employ soldiers with, or hand to corporations like Lockheed Martin to build an F-35 fighter. But don't worry, those people are working, right? For me, a family of 4, that's 8K actually (again on average) and that's money that you and I don't have to spend anymore is it? I mean, if they halved the expenditure and military spending was $300-$400 bn instead of $600-$700bn, instead of 2K per person, it'd be 1K and you'd still have that 1K to spend and I'd have 4K extra to spend, wouldn't I?

Does the money disappear when the government decides not to tax the taxpayer and allow the taxpayer to spend it himself?

When you go to the grocery store and spend money, there's people working there, isn't there? Those products on the shelves are put there by truckers trucking it in from warehouses being supplied by factories employing people, no?

Downsizing government is about jobs because the government is, by its nature, incredibly wasteful, but even if we ignored this effect, what downsizing government is is the difference between the government telling you what to buy with your money and YOU choosing what to buy with your money. You SHOULD prefer the latter.


maybe you should look at how many federal employees have been laid off…

2007 - 21.053mn public sector
2008 - 21.305mn public sector
11/2013 - 21.857 public sector

Look it up with the BLS yourself, there are more public sector employees today....in the interim the labor force participation rate has actually been declining.

[patrickt]

The liberals brag about how many people are on welfare. Why wouldn't they brag about a lesser percentage working.

[Chris]

every time you talk about "downsizing government" you're talking about jobs.

maybe you should look at how many federal employees have been laid off…

how many police officers…

how many firefighters…

how many teachers…


Funny he did not mention downsizing. Should we assume you're posting canned posts?

He did mention trickle down which you usually criticize--oh, but, wait, it's Obama trickling down, so let's give it a pass?

[patrickt]

I do love the way liberal trot out police officers and firefighters when they want to take more money. As for how many federal employees have been laid off? Not nearly enough. The size of the federal workforce hasn't shrunk. When I was working we would have "lay offs" and the work force would increase. Interesting, that.

Liberals are so bizarre that cutting costs doesn't mean spending less than you've been spending but rather means spending less than you want to spend. So, reducing the workforce is not having fewer employees than last year but not having nearly as many as you want.

[Chris]

I do love the way liberal trot out police officers and firefighters when they want to take more money. As for how many federal employees have been laid off? Not nearly enough. The size of the federal workforce hasn't shrunk. When I was working we would have "lay offs" and the work force would increase. Interesting, that.

Liberals are so bizarre that cutting costs doesn't mean spending less than you've been spending but rather means spending less than you want to spend. So, reducing the workforce is not having fewer employees than last year but not having nearly as many as you want.


It's an appeal to fear.

[zelmo1234]

The problem with government employee's is that every dime of salary and benefits are first taken out of the economy. they are 100% expense on the economy!

With the new ACA taxes and the fact that it is likely the business waiver will expire this year, I have to send the money that could be investing in expansion and more employee's into taxation and fines. The water price because the city where most of my rentals are mis managed the fund has more than tripled, so rents must go up to pay for that, leaving less money for the economy.

There are new taxes in MI to try and get our roads in better shape, this comes at the expense of renters and expansion

There are things that the government must do, however when they get to be the monster that they are today they are a burden.

we are in the process of trying to find a way to turn the business over to the employee's and allow them to purchase it. But it is likely if they try to take even one dime more in salary or benefits that they will fail. The will start to sell in 3 more years when there depreciation schedule comes to a close.

With the ACA my wife's practice is much les profitable if she chooses to accept the insurance or Medicaid/ care for payment. Is it worth staying in practice or she is thinking of joining the co-op and going to a cash only system, leaving her with the same profits with 1/3 of the work load. A doctor to the rich!

All of this is being discussed throughout the business world and it is because the nanny state has gotten out of control!

[texan]

This military bit that pops up grows tiresome. The military budgets have been cut big time since Obama took over. I don't care they can absorb their share of cuts I really don't think any conservative really cares. The problem is when the libs cut it they don't equally cut other wastes. Set all that aside now, do you have the guts to answer the original question?

[texan]

silence speaks volumes.....again people repeating other people.

[Mini Me]

Funny he did not mention downsizing. Should we assume you're posting canned posts?

He did mention trickle down which you usually criticize--oh, but, wait, it's Obama trickling down, so let's give it a pass?

Disingenuous, to say the least. No such thing as trickle down.
You know better than that!

[Mini Me]

I do love the way liberal trot out police officers and firefighters when they want to take more money. As for how many federal employees have been laid off? Not nearly enough. The size of the federal workforce hasn't shrunk. When I was working we would have "lay offs" and the work force would increase. Interesting, that.

Liberals are so bizarre that cutting costs doesn't mean spending less than you've been spending but rather means spending less than you want to spend. So, reducing the workforce is not having fewer employees than last year but not having nearly as many as you want.

If Govt. and the private sector spend less, that means less money going into the economy, which hurts the economy. It may improve the budget deficit, but its at the expense of the economy.

At this point, one has to decide which is more important: the economy or the budget deficit.
Clearly, if you improve the economy, then revenues increase reducing budget deficits. That is the way to go!

The correct time to reduce deficits, is when the economy is healthy, not when it is hurting.
Austerity has been the big failure of austerity that Rethugs favor.
They have things ass-backwards!

[Mini Me]

The problem with government employee's is that every dime of salary and benefits are first taken out of the economy. they are 100% expense on the economy!

With the new ACA taxes and the fact that it is likely the business waiver will expire this year, I have to send the money that could be investing in expansion and more employee's into taxation and fines. The water price because the city where most of my rentals are mis managed the fund has more than tripled, so rents must go up to pay for that, leaving less money for the economy.

There are new taxes in MI to try and get our roads in better shape, this comes at the expense of renters and expansion

There are things that the government must do, however when they get to be the monster that they are today they are a burden.

we are in the process of trying to find a way to turn the business over to the employee's and allow them to purchase it. But it is likely if they try to take even one dime more in salary or benefits that they will fail. The will start to sell in 3 more years when there depreciation schedule comes to a close.

With the ACA my wife's practice is much les profitable if she chooses to accept the insurance or Medicaid/ care for payment. Is it worth staying in practice or she is thinking of joining the co-op and going to a cash only system, leaving her with the same profits with 1/3 of the work load. A doctor to the rich!

All of this is being discussed throughout the business world and it is because the nanny state has gotten out of control!

Its more a result of the economic collapse than the nanny state.
But you cons love to blame nanny rather than the gross excesses of your pet elite, Wall street and bankers.

The elite don't care about your small biz concerns.

[zelmo1234]

Disingenuous, to say the least. No such thing as trickle down.
You know better than that!


I apologize, I am a bit stupid!

But can you explain to me how things grow from the bottom up. or the middle out? I am having a bit of a hard time with it?

[zelmo1234]

Its more a result of the economic collapse than the nanny state.
But you cons love to blame nanny rather than the gross excesses of your pet elite, Wall street and bankers.

The elite don't care about your small biz concerns.

The people that you call Elite other that politicians, usually are in large, small business owners.