The website you linked shows total revenue in 2007 at 5.2 trillion. Each year since then has been lower. Based on trickle down economics and conservative dogma, revenues should have increased after the Bush tax cuts.

Why, you think she has a nice rack? :yak5:

Thanks Zimmy

Don't need to read a chart to know that raising taxes
would mean more Govt. growth, like adding another 147,000
Govt. jobs since stimulus.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

After 3+ years we still don't have a budget. Imagine a household
or business without a budget? Simple, ya can't spend more than you have
without going broke.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery. In spirit, you are right though that the business of cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time, as was done in the 2000's, is terrible for short term and long term economy.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

No she wouldn't.Her rack is nonexistent.

If being stupid and a talking head were brains then you might have an argument for MENSA membership!

First thing would be to have a budget.

Second,cutting 10% across the board could be done on waste alone.

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

being Sunday i call for an AMEN

:fight::fight::rumble:

Do you know what that 147,000 actually means? Is it new jobs that require new workers? Is it someone left the post office and a new person was hired, someone retired from the foreign service and a replacement was hired? There is so much assumption and misinformation spread that the truth is almost never the way things are presented. I would bet you $10,000 :biglaugh: that there is no way the government was expanded to add 147,000 new jobs. That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine :uhuh: I will look into it, but I am guessing you were duped.

Here is a start, but this is from a year ago. As I suspected, though.

"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) claimed this morning at a press conference that "under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs." That's at least a 344 percent overstatement. In reality, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the federal workforce has grown by only 58,000 jobs since Obama took office (and by just 25,000 jobs since his economic policies began to impact the economy). Furthermore, Boehner's implication that government workers are thriving in a recession does not jibe with the larger picture. While the private sector has added 381,000 net jobs since Obama policies took effect, overall government employment has fallen by 309,000 jobs over the same period."

Speaker Boehner Is Wrong About "200,000 New Federal Jobs" In Obama Era | Political Correction

here is some more. Your number is reasonably close to that range, but the part about the jobs being to spend tax payers money doesn't really seem to coincide with h-s, justice, veterans and defense.

"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."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

LOL, as you use a year + old article by Political Correctness, the arm of the
left wing progressive Media Matters.

The CNN article said the Fed employment increase was not from
Obama alone, I never said that.

Right now the latest offical Dept of Labor statistics only go to 2010.
We will have to see what the true # is when 2011 is posted.

I pointed out it was a year ago, but it demonstrates the lies that confuse people. Boehner says 200000, and some people believe it without questioning it. The point was that it was a lie 3 times over. Where did you get your numbers? What do they mean? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are you upset with increases in homeland security and defense jobs? You said 145000 jobs created designed to spend taxpayer money. Perception and lies fool a lot of people.

The #s you quoted were 130,000, I said 147,000 which makes sense as the Dept of Labor Statistics only go to 2010 and like I said no one will know the true # until they post the 2011 #s. No problem with Military or Homeland security increases.
The #'s are both an indication of a growing and larger Govt and all it's ramifications.
All the boards I ever served on looked to spend all their $ before the fiscal year
was out to at least keep their current budget or get more $$. Can't be any different
with the Govt. and thus part of the waste. A 10% cut in spending is not unreasonable.

Yeah, I am going to leave it at that I am going to question the validity of your comment that 147,000 jobs created for people who's job it is to spend tax payer money. There is no information that backs the accuracy of that comment. Whether it is 123,000 that I posted or 147,000. Cutting 10% is a different question. There is no way to do that without cutting medicare and social security. 10% is an enormous amount of money, but I am not opposed to it in principal.

Yes this is one thing we can agree upon.
It happens on both sides of the isle and one of the
main reasons we are in the fix we are in.
There are very few politicians doing what they are elected to do,
serve the American people and not themselves.
Service, character, honesty and integrity are sorely lacking.

You are right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my 2 cents on the Government Jobs.

There was also a directive that came down a couple of years ago to get away from Government Contractors. so as Contractors were eliminated, Goverment positions were created to replace them. So a lot of the Jobs Created were actually positions that they we were paying for as contracted labor.

Good example of growing the government sector while shrinking the private sector.

Also an example of trying to save money.....they are paying a lot less for Gov employees than they were paying for contractors....salary wise

You sure about that? Government employees have some of the best pension and benefit plans. They are also more permanent. The cost of contractors is usually competitive by bidding. But the standard for bidding is dictated not only by the cost to the contractor, but by Federal Gvt. generosity. The government has historically been known to overpay compared to the private sector. That cost can be lowered if government has the motivation and will to do so.

But the real question is, what should the Federal Government be doing--Constitutionally? We are so used to it doing far more than what it has been granted the power to do by the Consitution, that we take it for granted. That it must be so. And when it takes on more tasks, even at the expense of the private sector and the tax payer, we assume that it should be so. We assume by expanding its domain of activity and workforce it's merely saving money. That the national debt keeps rising doesn't seem to connect in our unhistoric minds with the federal expansion. And we have been trained by time and custom that government expansion is right and good.

It was not originally so. And the national debt was not out of bounds before the progressive, big government mentality took hold.

Saving money by expanding government and its power seems to be a contradiction. Even more to the point, it is a consolidation of that power into a central authority, which is a contradiction to individual liberty and to the reason this country was founded.

I can only talk to the Federal Gov but....

The Pension/Benefits are not as good as everybody thinks.....people who have been in the Gov for decades are Grandfathered in to the sweet pension plan but new employees are in TSP which is a form of 401k. and a much reduced pension plan, and the Medical bennies they offer are nothing to write home about either.

The salaries they pay, at least in my field, are lower than what is offered in the private sector too, by about 5%

I'm not saying there aren't some issues with what the governemnt is spending.

I was just pointing out that the job creation that was talked about had somewhat to do w/ the decrease in contractors...the work still needs to get done so as contractors were eliminated, jobs were created

Has any analysis been done to determine how many of the "new" jobs were a result of replacing contractors with federal employees? That might be more enlightening.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, total number of federal personnel rose by 237,000 from 2008 to 2010 which included 148,000 uniformed military personnel and 84,000 executive branch civilians.

The Federal Jobs Network noted as of today that a further expansion of 182,629 workers were added to the federal workforce from 2010 to 2012. They point out in particular possibilities for future federal job expansion created by new health care legislation which calls for the formation of 150 new regulatory agencies and commissions. And many more federal regulators are needed to manage failed banks and TARP funds. They point out that the federal government owns 60% of GM and all of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, and have now taken over 100% of the student loan program. They say "There are many more jobs projected and those who start early will have a better chance of success." Jobs are available in the the U.S. and abroad.

Which all begs the question, is the Federal Government doing too much? Has it expanded its mission well beyond constitutional limitations? Is there an end goal to this trajectory?

Agree, and what are we lacking in the current government programs
that we need more of? If the Govt. was serious about getting the debt
under control it would become mean and lean like a corporation that
is failing. Get a budget, 3and1/2 years without one, and put a hiring freeze on until the debt is paid down.
According to an article in USA today Fed Govt retirement plans are almost
as costly and are falling short almost as much as Social Security is falling .
Last year they paid our 168 Billion in pensions.
Farm out what they can to the private sector and let them pay the benefits and pensions.

And therein lies the answer Johnn Boener was giving, about 200,000 Fed jobs added, let alone what was added between 2008 and 2010. Much higher than the 130,000 Zimmy said and the 147,000 I heard.

I checked the fedjobs website. There is no source for the numbers listed on the website. Where did they get the numbers? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are these really people hired to spend taxpayer money. Is a postal worker (who's numbers are decreasing) considered people hired to spend tax payer money. What is the truth and reality of these numbers, as opposed to generalization and misperception?

As Debutch said, The Federal Jobs Network noted it. What ever the reasons
they were hired, as I stated, it means larger Gov't, more taxes to pay and
what more Govt. programs do we need that are not already in place?
How many jobs were granted for political favors?
If you check the Bureau of Labor statistics you will find over 80,000 jobs
were created just between2008 and 2010.

These graphs are pretty self explanatory. Defense, veterans affairs, homeland security increased. Health and human services up a little since 2006. Commerce, state, interior, education, etc decreased or stayed the same. Federal employees as a percent of the total civilian workforce has varied betwee 1.2 and 1.25% for at least 11 years. Can't find the data for before that. So basically, people are being scammed into thinking there is some great growth of government workers who's job it is to spend taxpayer money.

That's where this is going now? How the heck could anyone ever quantify that. Yes, in times of war and terrorism, people were hired to help protect the country. Good.

This is about jobs numbers, not programs. They don't say anything about new programs created that weren't in place. Hiring people for homeland security is not adding a program not in place.

Here is some more about the reality of the numbers:
"Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of [federal] employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008."
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - Washington Times

Even the opening paragraph of the Wash. times article shows how the lame stream right wing media will try to incite people. Boehner did a nice job tricking people. At least be angry about facts, not distortions of facts.

Maybe the only place they should increase is in Border Patrol.:)

The numbers of illegal immigrants in the country is down since 2007. I will trust DOD and homeland security experts to put the funds to use based on their expertise, not on what is popular with the tea party.

Population Bulletin Update: Latinos in the United States 2010 - Population Reference Bureau

Tea party??

We spend too much...Do too much. Privatization is still spending the money we don't have. Crazy Tea Party thinking I guess.

I don't understand how the Latino link is directly related. It doesn't give any info on illegal immigration.

Number of illegal immigrants in U.S. is stable: DHS | Reuters

We spend too much sounds good. Secure the border sounds good and gets people riled up. In reality, the new jobs are to protect us and the number of illegal immigrants in the country has declined. The details underscore the difference between the sound bites and reality.

Zim, we will not know the true new Fed employees employed under the current
administration until 2013 when the Dept of Labor posts them. Can't believe the
2011 #s aren't posted yet. I gues they find it hard to count.
No need to worry about hiring freezes, no politician would have the guts to
introduce that, they don't even have the guts to pass a budget.

Buck, you have to come in here more often,
ya crack me up everytime. :hihi:

"I wish they(working people) would make more, so we can tax more."



you think you'd want people to make more, particularly those at the bottom rungs, so that they could support themselves without government asistance, secure their futures through savings and investment and provide a better standard of living for their families without having to rely on the government to subsidize different parts of their lives that are "unaffordable" but "necessary", like cell phones and such....

but Pelosi just wants them, you and me to make more so that she(we) can tax more... for most people, "making more" involves "working more"...more hours, weekends, nights, part-time jobs, nice to know that she'll be there.... waiting.... to collect more of what you earn :uhuh: nice people :)

So even though it was determined that the quote was made up your going to use it anyways?