Comments on: Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

By: David in Green Bay

David in Green Bay — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 05:00:56 +0000

The unfortunate reality for the “author” is that if the employees under Reagan had the automation, computing power, and networking capabilities of today, the same “governing” performed under the Reagan administration could have been performed by probably 1/3 the number of employees. There’s simply no valid comparison on this ground between the two. It’s like comparing the guy with the tractors and combines (Obama) to the guy with a couple mules hooked to a farming implement (Reagan). Sounded good though ;)

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 03:20:48 +0000

Read the title

What do you think? 0 0

By: William Dearing

William Dearing — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 03:13:03 +0000

Everyone needs to read the article again. One of the arguments was that Obama was not for “big government”. The article states that Dubya left office with 2,756,000 non-military federal employees, and Obama in 2010 had 2,840,000 – an *increase* of 84,000 (about 3%). Notice that the article failed to point this out – inconvenient fact that contradicts the premise.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:04:17 +0000

The liberals were in favor of the stimulus. The red coats were against it

Not one tax drop from Bush stimulated jobs, they did help the poor a little, but helped the very rich enormously more. There is a difference between Obama’s spending and Bush’s. Bush spent for 8 years like a madman, Obama is spending to try and get us out of the Bush 8 years.

Also, the effect on the nations ability to do its jobs was definitely lowered by the tax cuts

What do you think? 0 0

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:13:30 +0000

The Bush tax cuts benefited the poor. Please stop the liberal spin. Many new credits became available. After these cuts, more of the burden of the country fell on the “rich” than afterwards. Nearly 50% of the country pay NO federal income tax. I prepare tax returns for the rich and poor and have for 20 years. The propoganda you guys perpetuate is sickening.

Taxes were raised from a highest marginal rate of 31% to 39.6% under Clinton. The Bush tax cuts came in a time of a recession and brought the marginal rates to 35%. There is no creed or inherent moral law that tax rates should be set an any particular rate. The capital gains rates were reduced as part of the plan to help stimulate job growth. There are a number of other countries in the civilized world with reduced rates for dividend income. Some other former “socialist” countries like Russia have followed suit to provide such rates to stimulate investment in their countries.

Government revenues increased as a result of those tax cuts. Stop trying to make it seem like Bush was just trying to line the pockets of his buddies. It is such BS!

No true conservative was happy with Bush’s spending. So trying to compare all Bush’s deficits is a ludicrous venture. He made a host of the GOP angry over the spending. What is Obama’s answer? To do it even more. How Ironic. The liberals cried over the stimulus that Bush put into place in the early 2000′s and suggested they did nothing and were wrong to do. Yet those same people, once Obama got into office, were all for it. What hypocrisy.

What do you think? 0 0