The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

A 17% increase, especially if you thought something was too big to begin with doesn't strike me as "slight."

And the employment number (I see sources online that give a different larger number for civilian federal employees but the relatively static nature remains the same) is somewhat deceptive if, as is often complained about, the growth in government employment has not been in direct federal employees but rather through conversion of direct employment to contracted employment.

I tried to look it up but it would appear that the government doesn't actually keep count of how many people performing government jobs do so as contractors.

[Alex]

Finally figured out some better search terms. Several different sources indicate that there are at least 10 million people working in government as contractors (not counting the several million more military and post office) contractors. Here's one article (which does mention that while official employment has remained flat, contractors have exploded during the last 20 years.

Here's a 2006 Washington Post article (which is pointing out that Bush was hiding the peanut in claming smaller government while hiring more contractors) that estimates 2.5 additional contractor positions between 2002 and 2006.

[Morrigoon]

So there are more people working... they just don't get benefits. Or job security.

[Alex]

Oh, they may very well have benefits and security. They aren't working as freelance contractors. They work for companies that contract with the government.

[Prudence]

My experience working for the DoD was that the contractors generally had *better* salary and benefits (by a hefty margin) than we did. Job security was less so, as the government would recompete the support contracts every year or so, so contractors could potentially lose their jobs that way, if they were neither picked up by the new contracting agency nor found a new gig by their existing agency.

[JWBear]

Alex,

In your pursuit to pick apart the details, you miss the overall point. Despite the right-wing retoric, the size of the federal government has not increased significantly in the last 30 years. Since 1980 federal spending in relation to the GDP, although it has fluctuated, has stayed right around 20%. The biggest jump - 20.7% to 24.7% - was in 2009 due to TARP and the stimulus. Interestingly enough, Federal receipts (the money it takes in - mostly from taxes) went down from 17.5% in 2008 to 14.8% in 2009. In fact, federal receipts as a percentage of the GDP are currently the lowest they have been since 1950.

In other words... We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue shortfall.

Link


(ETA: Take a look at the chart I linked to. Notice which president spent the most money before 2009, and look who spent the least.)

[Alex]

No, I get your overall point. I don't even disagree with it.

That said, you're the one who said "A and B therefore C" where A is murky (in that I could pick a different set of equally true numbers that present a different picture of employment growth), B is subjective (in that you're just deciding on your own whether an 18% increase is "slight" and whether the baseline was a proper size and you've now kind of compromised yourself by clarifying that the 17% growth was not over 30 years but over two years), and C doesn't necessarily follow from A and B even if taken as true as you present them.

I know you feel that your logic is irrelevant if your conclusion is satisfying (and so any push back is just "picking apart the details", I just disagree. Your conclusion is irrelevant, even if correct, if your logic is unsatisfying. YMMV.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

I know you feel that your logic is irrelevant if your conclusion is satisfying

So, you can read minds now? You truely are a humorless, unemotional, inhuman Vulcan. Congratulations.

[Alex]

Just for the record, that conclusion (about my genetic origins) is not supported by the evidence you preceded it with.

But no, I don't read minds. But I have watched you react over several years to anybody questioning the evidence you present for a position, which is generally some form of "stop worrying about the details, I'm right."

Though if your first post on this topic here was meant to contain humor (thus creating some preciously unknown relevance as to whether I am humorless) I have to suggest that the humor flaw lies not with me.

Finally, "inhumanly Vulcan" is "childishly redundant."

Little known fact: sometimes reading minds is unexpectedly boring. Though if I read minds in the inhumanly Vulcan way I'd have to touch your face, which I assume neither one if us wants.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

which I assume neither one if us wants.

You ARE a mind reader.