BIG Government the way to move the Economy forward?
Obama has remarked in speeches on how Republicans were making him out to be a president who wanted a big government, but this was false. He claims he wants a leaner government, but at the same time talks about how government is the key to the economy.
From all of all the rhetoric I read, he is a man of many contradictions. He does say he is for a leaner government but many times contradicts himself in the same speech.
OPM statistics indicate that the Federal Government is growing again. Since at least 1960 the overall number of Federal Employees has been on the decline. Since that time there has been 3 presidents who have increased federal employment. LBJ, Reagan and Obama. For LBJ the rise it was the Vietnam War. For Reagan, Military Spending that lead to the fall of the USSR, For Obama? The new economic model? Under Bush Sr, Federal Employees had been on a steady decline until Obama.
Federal Employment Statistics
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Historica...tSince1962.asp
Facts don't lie. Obama wants an Economy where Big Government leads the way. In his speeches he tells everyone what they want to hear. From those who want a leaner government to those who think government should lead the way.
The remarks on wanting a small lean government reminded me of 2008 campaign rhetoric on Clean Coal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfcS1STL6WE
..... and here I was thinking that all the money tax payers would save from not funding two wars would be enough to justify why there was no need to raise taxes? Why I should believe that even with Obama's leaner government, wars ending in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the Government still doesn't have enough to run his efficient government?
..... Sorry no..... .
(…from a recent Obama speech in Ohio)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...V_story_4.htmlOBAMA: A federal government that is leaner and more efficient and more responsive to the American people.
I’ve signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion. My own deficit plan would strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs -- not shifting them to seniors and vulnerable families.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: And my plan would reduce our yearly domestic spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy in nearly 60 years.
So, no, I don’t believe the government is the answer to all our problems. I don’t believe every regulation is smart or that every tax dollar is spent wisely. I don’t believe that we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves.
(APPLAUSE)
But I do share the belief of our first Republican president from my home state, Abraham Lincoln, that through government we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
That’s how we built this country -- together. We constructed railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. We did those things together.
We sent my grandfather’s generation to college on the G.I. Bill together. We instituted a minimum wage and rules that protected people’s bank deposits together.
(APPLAUSE)
Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. We haven’t done these things as Democrats or Republicans. We’ve done them as Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Trans-Continental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges.
It was a Republican, Eisenhower, who launched the Interstate Highway System and a new era of scientific research.
It was Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency; Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security and who, by the way, raised taxes to help pay down an exploding deficit.
(APPLAUSE)
Yes, there have been fierce arguments throughout our history between both parties about the exact size and role of government, some honest disagreements. But in the decades after World War II there was a general consensus that the market couldn’t solve all of our problems on its own; that we needed certain investments to give hard-working Americans skills they needed to get a good job and entrepreneurs the platforms they needed to create good jobs; and we needed consumer protections that made American products safe and American markets sound.
So he cites many examples of how government is needed. True, but it’s the extent of government that is in question. He noted Eisenhower and Nixon as creating Federal Agency’s, but it should also be noted that they also reduced the Federal payrolls during their terms.
Democrat ideas on how to stimulate the economy haven’t changed much from 2010 to now, so I’m not clear on why I should believe that if we keep “beating the dead horse” it will wake up and start galloping for the next 4 years.
Obama Agriculture Secretary: Food Stamps Create Jobsredistributing money from taxpayers to those on food stamps, the government is indirectly creating jobs because welfare beneficiaries will spend their food stamp monies immediately, rather than save it or invest it
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obam...ps-create-jobs
As a contentious “farm” bill rages in Congress, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) argued Tuesday that unemployment insurance and food stamps (which are included in the legislation) are the two “most stimulative” measures to boost economic growth.Steny Hoyer: Food Stamps, Welfare Programs Stimulate the EconomyAnd Hoyer and Vilsack are not alone in their welfare-driven economic ideologies, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered a similar economic philosophy in July 2010, when she asserted that unemployment benefits generate jobs more quickly than almost any other program, because they “inject demand into the economy.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...te-the-economy
Bigger Government is not the answer. What works better; Trickle-down-Economics? Or Trickle Down Government?
………..some 2010 Stimulus spending low-lights..
- -- $233,000 to the University of California at San Diego to study why Africans vote. Jobs created: 12, but seven of those are Africans in Africa.
-- In Nevada, $2 million in stimulus money built a new fire station, but because of budget cuts, the county can't afford to hire firefighters to work there.
-- Penn State University got $1.5 million to study plant fossils in Argentina. Of 5 jobs created, 2 belong to Argentines.
-- Researchers the State University of New York at Buffalo got $389,000 to pay 100 Buffalonians $45 each to record how much malt liquor they drink -- and how much pot smoke each day. Consumption is then reported via an automated phone hotline. Cost per job: almost $200,000.
-- The Obama administration is spending $5 billion to weatherize homes. But one Texas county spent $4 million to weatherize just 47 homes. That's $78,000 per house. Each retrofit is supposed to save homeowners $500 a year in energy costs. That means taxpayers will recoup their investment in 156 years, long after the home is probably torn down.
-- Two Arizona universities got almost $1 million dollars so 3 grad students can study how ants work. That's more than $300,000 per job.
-- Companies that raise tropical fish, shellfish, catfish, alligators and even turtles qualify for $50 million in tax money to buy fish food.
-- North Carolina public schools received $4.4 million to hire math and literacy coaches, not for students, but teachers. That's 64 people paid $70,000 each to teach teachers how to teach reading and math.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...tionable-jobs/
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tony
