Azazello1313 Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 My comment was not about a federal employee that has worked from the early 80's - and you know that. It was about the 200,000+ that Obama has added. They are mostly high salaried folk. umm, my point was that no one hired SINCE the early 80s has had a particularly generous pension promised to them. that obviously includes anyone hired since obama came in. where do you get your assertion that "they are mostly high salaried folk"? pulling it out of your a.. thin air, I take it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 well, a few things. one, I'm not seeing where all the new jobs are in the defense department. your link didn't seem to indicate that. but in any case, you're right, at this point the number of federal employees is not really a strong argument against the obama economy. it was a slightly stronger argument before there was a hiring freeze in 2010, when the federal government was indeed adding jobs while the rest of the economy was shedding them like crazy. but even then it missed the real point, which concerns not the number of federal versus private employees, but: 1) federal spending as a share of GDP 2) the amount of power being given to bureaucrats to direct the economy 3) dirigism and favortism as massive amounts of federal spending are directed to croneys and politically favored factions 4) all of which results in inefficient market distortions, and a chilling long-term fiscal outlook look at the stimulus bill, for example. to the extent it created jobs, it created ones that were dependent on federal largesse, but very little of that $800 billion or whatever went to the direct hire of federal employees. of all the things to criticize about that fubared endeavor, the number of direct federal employees doesn't even register. http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/ Check out the graph in the middle of the page that shows which departments added jobs. You'll see that the Homeland Security, VA and Defense departments accounted for the bulk of these jobs. I don't remember singling out the Def Dept, I thought I had stated that they growth was in these 3 departments, If I did, I misspoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 That SEC=UGA fella keeps trying to make pizza with a kitchen full of fry cooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 McHate Mcmeets McPizza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 McHate Mcmeets McPizza Interracial, ghey secks doesn't play well in FL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 these two are not even remotely mutually exclusive. Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Interracial, ghey secks doesn't play well in FL. Even when one of them is a Republican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways. Or it could be that the federal jobs are merely a by-product of carrying out the functions of government, NOT a "responsibility" of government at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Even when one of them is a Republican Nope, Floridians don't like interracial, ghey secks, period. Well, outside of Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/The Keys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Interracial, ghey secks doesn't play well in FL. Well, that's what the 2nd term looks like bizattches! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I am not endorsing their actions, just calling you out for being purposely or unwittingly misleading I think she is purposely misleading, AND unwitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Or it could be that the federal jobs are merely a by-product of carrying out the functions of government, NOT a "responsibility" of government at all. I'm not sure you fully grasped what I was aiming for. Does the federal government have a responsibility to create jobs? If one feels the answer to that questions is "no" then one should not blame unemployment on the president. On the other hand, if one feels that unemployment is the fault of the federal government then its a bit disingenuous to criticize the federal government for actually hiring some people... especially if such hiring is byproduct of carrying out necessary governmental functions. Lots of folks are mad at Obama because of unemployment. But I just don't understand that. Seems like our collective frustration is more naturally directed at the self-professed "job creators" for doing a shitty job in that regard, despite record corporate profits and the fact that the rich have never been richer. Edited September 11, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I'm not sure you fully grasped what I was aiming for. Does the federal government have a responsibility to create jobs? If one feels the answer to that questions is "no" then one should not blame unemployment on the president. On the other hand, if one feels that unemployment is the fault of the federal government then its a bit disingenuous to criticize the federal government for actually hiring some people... especially if such hiring is byproduct of carrying out necessary governmental functions. Lots of folks are mad at Obama because of unemployment. But I just don't understand that. Seems like our collective frustration is more naturally directed at the self-professed "job creators" for doing a shitty job in that regard, despite record corporate profits and the fact that the rich have never been richer. You're likely to be told that its Obama's fault because he scares the job creators with his actions, they don't want to create jobs because they are afraid and uncertain. If only Romney or any other Republican were in charge they'd take it easy on businesses and BANG the jobs would be created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 You're likely to be told that its Obama's fault because he scares the job creators with his actions, they don't want to create jobs because they are afraid and uncertain. If only Romney or any other Republican were in charge they'd take it easy on businesses and BANG the jobs would be created. Which is collectively the biggest crock of crap evah. Taxes are at record lows, profits are soaring becasue of sqeezing lower tier employees for more productivity with less pay and wages are stagnant or decreasing because of a larger labor pool. Yep . . sure is scaaaary out there for "job creators". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Either the federal government has a responsibility to create jobs (which they have, in the public sector) or its not the federal government's job to create jobs at all (in which case don't blame Obama for unemployment). You can't have it both ways. the idea is that fiscal and regulatory policy can have significant impacts on the economy as a whole. in fact, that is the whole rationale for "stimulus" spending in the first place. when politicians sell their policies promising they will "create" millions of new jobs, I don't think they are talking about adding millions directly to the federal payroll. is that really what you think they mean? "Blaming Obama for unemployment", as you put it, is really just judging the performance of the economy against those very same promises used to sell his policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 the idea is that fiscal and regulatory policy can have significant impacts on the economy as a whole. in fact, that is the whole rationale for "stimulus" spending in the first place. when politicians sell their policies promising they will "create" millions of new jobs, I don't think they are talking about adding millions directly to the federal payroll. is that really what you think they mean? "Blaming Obama for unemployment", as you put it, is really just judging the performance of the economy against those very same promises used to sell his policies. I don't have a problem with how the Obama administration has run the country. Yes, the fed's policies obviously do have an impact on the economy but the ultimate responsibility for creating private sector jobs rests with the private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 I don't have a problem with how the Obama administration has run the country. well that certainly explains why you don't like to see his promises and predictions for his policies measured against reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) well that certainly explains why you don't like to see his promises and predictions for his policies measured against reality. No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain. Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues. Edited September 11, 2012 by yo mama 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 12, 2012 Author Share Posted September 12, 2012 No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain. Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues. so, he fares well when you judge him against a nefarious strawman, and very poorly when you judge him against his own claims and promises. sums up the 2012 election pretty well, I suppose. and speaking of meaningless, divisive social issues, did you see any of the conventions? if you did, I don't see how you could argue with a straight face that it is the GOP which is more fixated on divisive social issues. sandra fluck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) so, he fares well when you judge him against a nefarious strawman, and very poorly when you judge him against his own claims and promises. sums up the 2012 election pretty well, I suppose. and speaking of meaningless, divisive social issues, did you see any of the conventions? if you did, I don't see how you could argue with a straight face that it is the GOP which is more fixated on divisive social issues. sandra fluck? I think Obama has done a decent job based solely on the merits of his performance. Not a perfect job. But certainly not "very poorly" by any standard. The only reason you know the name Sandra Fluck is because "conservatives" called her a slut and a whore for having the audacity to use contraceptives. So, yeah, I believe the GOP is more fixated on divisive social issues than the democrats. Edited September 12, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 No, I'm just a lot better off than I was four years ago so I have no reason to complain. Regardless of what was or was not promised, by my account the president - while far from perfect - has done an adept job of navigating the country through some of the rockiest economic times the planet has seen in long while. I am also convinced that the average American would be worse off under current GOP leadership, which I view as largely detached from reality, and fixated on meaningless and divisive social issues. Are you on the Federal dole? A retired worker with a lifetime pension? Please specifically enlighten us as to how you are better off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 I think Obama has done a decent job based solely on the merits of his performance. Not a perfect job. But certainly not "very poorly" by any standard. The only reason you know the name Sandra Fluck is because "conservatives" called her a slut and a whore for having the audacity to use contraceptives. So, yeah, I believe the GOP is more fixated on divisive social issues than the democrats. NO one called her a slut or a whore. We want her to pay for her own behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 NO one called her a slut or a whore. We want her to pay for her own behavior. You lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 You lie. Please post the link to the calling of her a slut or a whore. I am not lying about her paying for her own behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady.hawke Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 (edited) Moreover, before I go to bed tonight, ANYONE who thinks birth control matters in the current election is severely deluded. This election is about the very survival of the USA. Could some of you put aside your partisanship and realize that? Our debt is out of control. If not caring about yourself, could you please care for your parents and children. If you are not scared, you are not paying attention. A mocking post in reply to this one speaks volumes about that poster. Please be serious, as these times require serious people. Edited September 12, 2012 by Lady.hawke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.