Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats.

[julius]

http://mashable.com/2015/08/06/trump-richest-candidates/#LTte1lCOQskn

Perot
Trump
Washington
Forbes
Romney
Kerry

In that order

So basically, 1 person from a long ass time ago, and a Independant, Republican, Republican, Republican and a Schmuck.

Sounds like my point was spot on.

 

[Denny Crane]

It looks to me like JFK was worth $500M+. That would put him above Washington in the list. The figure is estimated by a NYTimes link i found.

Kerry for purposes of the list was $200M, so they didn't include his wife's fortune.

The Clintons are worth $100M+ as is Gore.

They would be in the top 10. Not that they were worth that much when they ran.

W's net worth was $27M, almost all of that from his very successful tenure of and sale of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

I don't care about the wealth that much. Typically, those who run are successful in the private sector. No biggie.

 

[Stevenson]

That's not a fact at all. Government just gets bigger in different areas. See Dubya..

Really?

Carter: On December 31st 1976, total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980, the end of Carter's only term, the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Decease of 8,000 non-military employees

Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees. By the end of his 2 terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000.
INCREASE of 238,000 government employees

GHWBush: On January 20th, 1989, starting with 3,113,000. End of his term - 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books.
Decrease of 30,000 federal employees.

Clinton started with 3,083,000. End of his second term he and Gore (Gore was in charge of this project) had reduced federal employees to 2,703,000. Decrease of 380,000 federal employees.

George W. Bush: Started with 703,000 nonmilitary employees. Ended with 2,756,000,
INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

Obama - It is shrinking again

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...hes-back-against-paul-krugman’s-blog-attacks/

But you see, there’s a problem with Krugman’s original blog post (we’ll ignore his wholly unnecessary and adolescent victory lap): His claim that the government workforce has declined under President Obama only works if we combine federal with state and local employment numbers.

Why is this a problem for Krugman? Because the only workforce the Oval Office can expand, the only part of government it has the ability to grow and keep employed, is the federal workforce. State and local — which have indeed fallen — are more or less out of his reach.

And the federal workforce has grown.

“Professor Krugman argues statistics in his usual fashion: making them up or adding in irrelevant information to prove his predetermined point,” Sen. Paul said in a statement posted to his Facebook page, “he and I were debating the size of government workforce under President Obama. The only logical number we could have been discussing was the number of federal workers. Since the last time I checked, Barack Obama was the President, not a mayor or governor.”

As it turns out, there are more federal workers under President Obama then there were under President George W. Bush [the spike in hiring was for the census]:

“The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers,” Michael R. Strain writes for the American Enterprise Institute.

“In only one month of Mr. Bush’s presidency was the federal workforce larger than it was during the month of Mr. Obama’s presidency when the federal workforce was at its smallest. With the exception of that one month, Mr. Obama’s minimum is larger than Mr. Bush’s maximum,” Strain adds.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sequester for the win!

 

[jlprk]

Republican politicians lie to get elected. It's a fake party, a charade construct created to obey orders from their employers (rich campaign contributors). The party is just a service for hire.

The Democratic Party functions as an escape valve for real simmering popular passions, not fake media ones.

Unlike Republicans and Democrats, the British Parliament has honest names. The House of Lords exists to represent the rich and royals. The House of Commons exists to represent common people.

 

[julius]

It looks to me like JFK was worth $500M+. That would put him above Washington in the list. The figure is estimated by a NYTimes link i found.

Kerry for purposes of the list was $200M, so they didn't include his wife's fortune.

The Clintons are worth $100M+ as is Gore.

They would be in the top 10. Not that they were worth that much when they ran.

W's net worth was $27M, almost all of that from his very successful tenure of and sale of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

I don't care about the wealth that much. Typically, those who run are successful in the private sector. No biggie.

Yeah, worth that NOW. Not when they ran.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, worth that NOW. Not when they ran.

They would be in the top 10. Not that they were worth that much when they ran.

I wrote that.

 

[julius]

They would be in the top 10. Not that they were worth that much when they ran.

I wrote that.

I think it's more important to compare what they were worth when they ran.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama was woth $7M.
Ford $7M.
Ike $8M.
Reagan $13M.
Nixon $15M.
GW Bush $20M.
GHW Bush $23M.
FDR $60M.
Hoover $75M.
LBJ $98M.
Teddy Roosevelt $125M.
JFK $1B.

Those are the richest presidents edit: since ~1900.

Four democrats on the list, 3 of the richest 5.

Source: http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5025/richest-us-presidents#Intro

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it's more important to compare what they were worth when they ran.

I think Clinton lived in a mansion for a decade and was driven around in a limousine. As governor of Arkansas.

Gore owned a mansion as senator, So I assume he was wealthy when he ran.

 

[barfo]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...hes-back-against-paul-krugman’s-blog-attacks/

But you see, there’s a problem with Krugman’s original blog post (we’ll ignore his wholly unnecessary and adolescent victory lap): His claim that the government workforce has declined under President Obama only works if we combine federal with state and local employment numbers.

Why is this a problem for Krugman? Because the only workforce the Oval Office can expand, the only part of government it has the ability to grow and keep employed, is the federal workforce. State and local — which have indeed fallen — are more or less out of his reach.

And the federal workforce has grown.

“Professor Krugman argues statistics in his usual fashion: making them up or adding in irrelevant information to prove his predetermined point,” Sen. Paul said in a statement posted to his Facebook page, “he and I were debating the size of government workforce under President Obama. The only logical number we could have been discussing was the number of federal workers. Since the last time I checked, Barack Obama was the President, not a mayor or governor.”

As it turns out, there are more federal workers under President Obama then there were under President George W. Bush [the spike in hiring was for the census]:

“The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers,” Michael R. Strain writes for the American Enterprise Institute.

“In only one month of Mr. Bush’s presidency was the federal workforce larger than it was during the month of Mr. Obama’s presidency when the federal workforce was at its smallest. With the exception of that one month, Mr. Obama’s minimum is larger than Mr. Bush’s maximum,” Strain adds.

Of course the line keeps going down after mid-2012 where your graph stopped. I linked you the data just a day or two ago.

There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and [in mid-2012] there are 2,804,000 workers,”

And as of 2014, 2,663,000.

And how low is that?

It was the summer of 1966. Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and the Great Society was roaring. In August, the federal government had 2,721,000 employees.

Yeah. There are fewer federal employees now than there were 50 years ago. But to hear you talk, you'd think Obama had tripled the size of government.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course the line keeps going down after mid-2012 where your graph stopped. I linked you the data just a day or two ago.



And as of 2014, 2,663,000.

And how low is that?



Yeah. There are fewer federal employees now than there were 50 years ago. But to hear you talk, you'd think Obama had tripled the size of government.

barfo

[/QUOTE]

You linked to data, barfo. It showed the federal employees higher in each of Obama's years except this one.

 

[barfo]

You linked to data, barfo. It showed the federal employees higher in each of Obama's years except this one.

You miss the forest for the shrubbery, Denny.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Also, you don't measure the size of government in employees. You measure it as a % of GDP, the number of regulations, the size of the tax code, the debt.

 

[Denny Crane]

You miss the forest for the shrubbery, Denny.

barfo

You complain the graph stops in 2012 when Obama had increased government employees.

I see the forest. You complain about the trees.

 

[barfo]

You complain the graph stops in 2012 when Obama had increased government employees.

I see the forest. You complain about the trees.

You post an out of date graph, and when I call you on it you say the data in the graph is the wrong data to be looking at.

Well, time for you to throw something else at the wall, then, to see if it sticks. If you keep posting stuff, odds are eventually you'll get something correct.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The forest of trees, 2009-2014 are more employees than he started with, your 2015 tree is a good thing.

Regardless of when "my" graph ended.

At least I am not pretending state and county and municipal employees as something Obama had a hand in. Could be all those republican governors.

 

[jlprk]

Also, you don't measure the size of government in employees. You measure it as a % of GDP, the number of regulations, the size of the tax code, the debt.

Oops. You forgot the most obvious one...as a percentage of the nation's population. What an accident. Your memory is slipping in your old age.

 

[barfo]

Oops. You forgot the most obvious one...as a percentage of the nation's population. What an accident. Your memory is slipping in your old age.

But that wouldn't fit the story line.

Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Oops. You forgot the most obvious one...as a percentage of the nation's population. What an accident. Your memory is slipping in your old age.

It only takes one guy to write a $4T check. Size of population isn't a factor.

 

[Denny Crane]

At 24% or 25%, government is huge compared to 1966. Inflation adjusted, etc. That doesn't count mandated spending, e,g. ObamaCare.

 

[Stevenson]

Obama is overseeing the fastest budget deficit reduction since WWII, other than Clinton (per Bloomberg!)

Facts are pesky things!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Stevenson, it's great that the deficit is returning to levels that the Dread Pirate W ran, but it seems disingenuous to state that one is "overseeing the fastest budget deficit reduction" when one was the primary reason there was a huge deficit in the first place. What exactly was the benefit of the additional 3,500 billion dollars in debt racked up over the last 6 years? (And BTW, I'm pretty sure that big red line should be blue, as most of it came from the Stimulus Act pushed by the (D) House and (D) Senate and signed by Pres. Obama.).

 

[Denny Crane]

Regardless of the obstructionist republicans forcing Obama to spend less so the deficits reduced, Obama has spent about $12T more than Bush did in his 8 years. That's including quantitate easing by the Fed.

My bad. Republicans only obstruct when it's a convenient excuse for Obama's failures.

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...aacba64_story.html?postshare=8071443093953012