Under President Obama, employment by the government has gone down.

Quote:Since the recovery from the Great Recession officially began in June 2009, private-sector jobs are up by 2.8 million, but public-sector jobs (the combined employment in federal, state, and local governments) are down by 584,000.

http://www.epi.org/publication/public-se...+Institute

Obama is really bad at ushering in this socialist revolution that he's supposedly working on.

How many are federal, how many are state, and how many are local? The article doesn't appear to break that down.

(04-06-2012 09:06 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Under President Obama, employment by the government has gone down.

Quote:Since the recovery from the Great Recession officially began in June 2009, private-sector jobs are up by 2.8 million, but public-sector jobs (the combined employment in federal, state, and local governments) are down by 584,000.

http://www.epi.org/publication/public-se...+Institute

Obama is really bad at ushering in this socialist revolution that he's supposedly working on.

I expect that the vast majority of this is at the State and local levels. Federal employees?..not so much. They have to retire of die before they leave a job.

(04-06-2012 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many are federal, how many are state, and how many are local? The article doesn't appear to break that down.

Yes, especially since GOP governors were getting so much grief about laying off employees and how that would slow down the recovery.

(04-06-2012 09:45 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many are federal, how many are state, and how many are local? The article doesn't appear to break that down.

Yes, especially since GOP governors were getting so much grief about laying off employees and how that would slow down the recovery.

Correct.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/25/news/eco.../index.htm

Quote:Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.

The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.

Edit:

... or maybe his socialist revolution is going exactly according to schedule. First build up the military and justice department in an effort to centralize military and judicial power, then declare yourself supreme dictator. Brilliant!

Since August 2008, employment at the state and local levels has declined by 142,000 and 499,000 respectively.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

(04-06-2012 09:54 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Since August 2008, employment at the state and local levels has declined by 142,000 and 499,000 respectively.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf

So are you saying that a net decrease in government employment is a good thing or a bad thing?

Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Absolutely.

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Hope so.

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

(04-06-2012 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

Yeah, we need to get rid of every government agancy because as we all know corporations are moral and will act that way if we just let them thrive in a free market with no regulations.

(04-06-2012 12:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.
It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

Yeah, we need to get rid of every government agancy because as we all know corporations are moral and will act that way if we just let them thrive in a free market with no regulations.

If the government agencies are no more moral than the corporations, what good do they do in this regard? And what is the basis for any argument that government agencies are more moral?

I actually see one justification--that two entities keeping tabs on each other are more likely to keep both in line than either or both acting independently--and for that reason I favor some regulation, not none as you erroneously contend. But the system would work better if the oversight over the bureaucrats were a lot stronger.

(04-06-2012 12:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

Yeah, we need to get rid of every government agancy because as we all know corporations are moral and will act that way if we just let them thrive in a free market with no regulations.

I believe that sensible and strict regulation is a core responsibility of government. That being said, there's no reason why efficiency gains experienced in private industry should not be leveraged in public agencies to reduce the manpower required to enforce those regulations.

We should be able to do more with fewer people, even if the price doesn't change.

(04-06-2012 01:25 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

Yeah, we need to get rid of every government agancy because as we all know corporations are moral and will act that way if we just let them thrive in a free market with no regulations.

I believe that sensible and strict regulation is a core responsibility of government. That being said, there's no reason why efficiency gains experienced in private industry should not be leveraged in public agencies to reduce the manpower required to enforce those regulations.

We should be able to do more with fewer people, even if the price doesn't change.

Hmm, what does "more" mean in these instances? That's a frightening proposition.

(04-06-2012 12:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:14 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(04-06-2012 10:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Just answering the question from above. Federal employment has not fallen under Obama. Only state and local has fallen.

Fair enough.

It's upsetting to see that DOD, DHS, and DOJ hiring has increased. Hopefully we can drastically reduce those branches as well, right?

Yep.

Yeah, we need to get rid of every government agancy because as we all know corporations are moral and will act that way if we just let them thrive in a free market with no regulations.

The last time I checked...theft was immoral.

For clarity....I have the same disdain for any corporation that is in BED with the government and is allowed coercive market share.