Kinda hard to do when pinheads like Bush declare that “the surplus belongs to us” and promptly eliminate it.
The use of the word “taxpayer” is quite silly. EVERYBODY pays taxes. How about “public”? I don’t believe either the claim that private companies clear out middle management in tough times or that government doesn’t. Got a cite? What private companies do is lay off the low men on the totem poles.
What they usually do is lay off middle managers, who tend to cost a lot and provide little value to a company. In the private sector, middle management gets added because department budgets increase, so they add staff. Companies generally do not cut customer-facing staff, which would be the low men on the totem pole, because that costs them business. Eliminating middle management is nearly costless.
As for governments, administrators keep on increasing as a percentage of school staff, in good times or bad. At some public universities, the ratio is 1-1, where 30 years ago it was more like 17-1 in favor of instructors. And when public school funding drops, it’s always the teachers that get cut. Because taxpayers must be punished for refusing to pony up.
http://chronicle.com/article/Administrator-Hiring-Drove-28-/144519/
And neither is Obamacare. Are you opposed to it too?
Both. It was not achievable at the time.
Are you forgetting that politics is the art of the possible?
IOW, “Ditto!”
“Just moving money around” is exactly what the economy is.
No it isn’t. It’s the exchange of money for goods and services that add value. If I give you $1 and you give it back to me, no growth has taken place. But if you give me $1 for a loaf of bread that I made, then we have both benefitted, as has the person who sold me the ingredients to make the bread, as have the workers on his farm who planted and harvested the wheat.
If it was just about moving money around, we could take $1, give it to the farm worker, who would give it to his boss, who would give it to the supermarket, who would give it to me, who would give it to you, and we’re all richer! Actually you just now have $1 and we have nothing.
Suppose the number of instructors increased by 2% and the number of administrators increased by 3%. The above quote would be true but meaningless. I think there isn’t enough context provided to make that stat meaningful.
I’m quite skeptical of an increase in the administrator/instructor ratio from 1:1 to 17:1. In fact, I’m very doubtful, indeed.
All this I suppose makes sense if one views it through the distorted prism that bends every stat into “OMG! Goverments are EEEEVIL!!!”, but not to anyone else.
I didn’t mention printing money, but I take your point (considering that spending in excess of revenue requires either borrowing or printing money).
New Harry Enten article from 538, “Senator Sanders, You’re No Barack Obama.”
The concluding sentence:
Yup, I’m a Dittohead and a Communist. You got me. e_e
I said I had ideological reasons for disliking her, you asked what they were, that’s what they are.
This is something below sophomoric. This is incoherent.
And I showed you to be wrong about the single ideological reason you have, and then you went back into hate mode.
Gotta do better than that.
Well, except when you look at historical data and facts.
The Real Reason for Big Government
A chronicle of government growth over the last 100 years shows that most of the increase in federal programs took place in only two decades: the 1930s and the 1960s. And the last 40 years have seen little significant growth in our national government. In 1970, 2.9 million civilians worked for the federal government; in 2008, that figure was 2.8 million. In 1970, federal bureaucrats made up 3.8 percent of total U.S. workers, while in 2008 they made up a mere 1.9 percent. Hardly evidence of continuous or uncontrollable growth.
Read to the end; it’s fascinating.
Might be time to stick that fork back in:
The funny part:
Isn’t it illegal for the State Department to get involved in politics? This sure sounds like they are trying to protect Clinton.
The timing of this “scandal” (whether it ultimately bears fruit or is just another fake Clinton witchhunt) is good for the Democrats – either nothing significant will come to light and it will blow over and voters will mostly forget about it, or it will sink her with time for Biden or someone else to jump in long before the convention.
We’ll see, but when it’s come to supposed scandals, betting against the Clintons has been a losing bet.
Betting against BILL is a losing bet. Someone else already used her constant scandals to beat her. Whatever became of that guy?
I half agree with you on whether it’s good for Democrats. If Clinton is sunk and a good alternative takes her place, that’s great. What would have been better for the party would have been Liz Warren, Joe Biden, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Howard Dean, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chaffee all in the race right now.
I don’t think her “constant scandals” (or the myth of such) were a significant part of the 2008 campaign. Obama’s support was much more about Obama than about Hillary.
That many candidates would not have been good. Maybe one or two of them on top of those already in.
Per HillaryHating[sup]tm[/sup] Reuters*, “Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start”
So, clearly Reuters is also Out To Get Hillary.
*Using the current “Anyone who has any (even one!) question/concern/issue with Hillary is a HillaryHater[sup]tm[/sup]” definition being used in this and other Election threads
So, it comes down to who to believe: the State Department, who are experts in the field and knowledgeable about the subjects and persons involved, says the emails that THEY dealt with on a daily basis weren’t classified, or Reuters, which is a news organization, with, one presumes, NO access to classified material, who says the emails were classified.
Do I have to draw you a map? :dubious:
And apparently the ACLU has been bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton on this issue ;).