There was a post on another thread about how the number of federal employees has remained the same for the last 40 years. I do not want to derail the post, but I did want to address the author.

Here is the truth.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/02/federal-government-growth-continues-while-federal-employee-numbers-hold/

QuoteSince 1960, the number of state- and local-government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state-government employees, largely funded by Washington.

Now add to the fact that these will be on pensions after they retire and you can see the burden on the taxpayer is a train wreck coming.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-employees-are-10-of-our-labor-force/msg395154/#msg395154

Quote from: joesixpack on July 04, 2020, 12:42:25 PM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-employees-are-10-of-our-labor-force/msg395154/#msg395154

Great, add to that number the cost of pensions, healthcare, etc. That is a lot for the rest of us to pay. Joe, I can not help but think you see taxpayers as an endless cash cow. Just think how much the average taxpayer could do for his own family if they could keep more of there own money. And before you tell me that 90% paying for 10% is not that bad, remember, 47% pay no taxes!

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 12:54:59 PM
Great, add to that number the cost of pensions, healthcare, etc. That is a lot for the rest of us to pay. Joe, I can not help but think you see taxpayers as an endless cash cow. Just think how much the average taxpayer could do for his own family if they could keep more of there own money. And before you tell me that 90% paying for 10% is not that bad, remember, 47% pay no taxes!

1. I'm not against pension reform. That could be it's own thread.
2. Government employees pay taxes too.
3. What's this thread meant to be about exactly? Are we trying to balance the budget? Shrink the government? or Change the tax code?

These are job for people who cannot otherwise get a job in the private sector...mostly democrats and they can be counted on to do the dem reps bidding...additionally they are arrogant and condescending toward their customers...the American people WHO PAY THEIR SALARIES.   There is too much waste and too many employess doing nothing.   Drain the bureaucratic swamp.

Quote from: joesixpack on July 04, 2020, 12:58:42 PM
1. I'm not against pension reform. That could be it's own thread.
2. Government employees pay taxes too.
3. What's this thread meant to be about exactly? Are we trying to balance the budget? Shrink the government? or Change the tax code?

I bet you have no clue as to how stupid of a statement that was, do you?

Quote from: joesixpack on July 04, 2020, 12:58:42 PM
1. I'm not against pension reform. That could be it's own thread.
2. Government employees pay taxes too.
3. What's this thread meant to be about exactly? Are we trying to balance the budget? Shrink the government? or Change the tax code?

You are too funny Joe, This is in response to a post you made which was derailing your own thread. Here is what you posted,


In other words, you were trying to show that the number of federal employees has not increased in 40 years.
""I only posted that to give a historical perspective of the size of our government. I don't think we're doing too bad if it's the same size now that it was 40 years ago""



Which is why I posted

QuoteSince 1960, the number of state- and local-government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state-government employees, largely funded by Washington.

To show what you had posted was not exactly true, in fact, far from it.  Now that should bring us up to date.

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 01:41:22 PM
You are too funny Joe, This is in response to a post you made which was derailing your own thread. Here is what you posted,


In other words, you were trying to show that the number of federal employees has not increased in 40 years.
""I only posted that to give a historical perspective of the size of our government. I don't think we're doing too bad if it's the same size now that it was 40 years ago""



Which is why I posted
To show what you had posted was not exactly true, in fact, far from it.  Now that should bring us up to date.

Ah, okay.

Well, that thread was already derailed. I posted that information to help them reach some kind of agreement.

Then I immediately posted an update to get the thread back on track.

Their discussion was originally about Federal employees only. So the data I posted is accurate.

This thread, is about All government employees, State, Local, and Federal, that's why I linked the thread I did on the topic a few months ago:

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-employees-are-10-of-our-labor-force/msg395154/#msg395154

Based on the numbers in this thread and the ones from my original thread, we're in agreement on the size of government.

1 of 10 people is employed by the government (all levels) directly.

If you add 4M contract employees, 2M grant employees, 1.5M Active military, and 500K postal employees...

15% of our 160M people work-force is employed by the government.

Quote from: joesixpack on July 04, 2020, 03:30:14 PM
Ah, okay.

Well, that thread was already derailed. I posted that information to help them reach some kind of agreement.

Then I immediately posted an update to get the thread back on track.

Their discussion was originally about Federal employees only. So the data I posted is accurate.

This thread, is about All government employees, State, Local, and Federal, that's why I linked the thread I did on the topic a few months ago:

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/government-employees-are-10-of-our-labor-force/msg395154/#msg395154

Based on the numbers in this thread and the ones from my original thread, we're in agreement on the size of government.

Didn't read the article? In summary, nobody wants to see the federal employee numbers grow. Yet the government is constantly adding to the work to be done and adding new agencies. To help offset this congress "works" around and basically hires state agencies to do the work, thereby the state agencies add the workers and they are paid by the federal grants.


""Since 1960, the number of state- and local-government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state-government employees, largely funded by Washington."" Whether state or federal, since they are paid thru federal money, it is left up to the taxpayer to fund them. The end result is the numbers of workers the federal government pays for is growing, they are just playing with the numbers.

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 04:26:18 PM
Didn't read the article? In summary, nobody wants to see the federal employee numbers grow. Yet the government is constantly adding to the work to be done and adding new agencies. To help offset this congress "works" around and basically hires state agencies to do the work, thereby the state agencies add the workers and they are paid by the federal grants.


""Since 1960, the number of state- and local-government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state-government employees, largely funded by Washington."" Whether state or federal, since they are paid thru federal money, it is left up to the taxpayer to fund them. The end result is the numbers of workers the federal government pays for is growing, they are just playing with the numbers.

BINGO!!! That's why Govt graphs aren't worth a shit, GIGO! Even the GAO admits their numbers are meaningless, all because of the constraints placed upon them when calculating the numbers.

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 04:26:18 PM
Didn't read the article? In summary, nobody wants to see the federal employee numbers grow. Yet the government is constantly adding to the work to be done and adding new agencies. To help offset this congress "works" around and basically hires state agencies to do the work, thereby the state agencies add the workers and they are paid by the federal grants.


""Since 1960, the number of state- and local-government employees has tripled to more than 18 million, a growth driven by federal money: Between the early 1960s and early 2010s, the inflation-adjusted value of federal grants for the states increased more than tenfold. For example, the EPA has fewer than 20,000 employees, but 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state-government employees, largely funded by Washington."" Whether state or federal, since they are paid thru federal money, it is left up to the taxpayer to fund them. The end result is the numbers of workers the federal government pays for is growing, they are just playing with the numbers.

For our reference, here's the source that your article uses for its' numbers:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/13/ten-questions-and-answers-about-americas-big-government/

According to that report, there are about 20M employees of the government(all levels). My estimate is between 16M (direct employees of government) and 25M (when you include contract, grant, military, and postal employees)

My estimate of 15% of our workforce was actually higher than the report, but it was close.

So, we agree on the current size of government.

Where else do you want to steer our conversation?

Quote from: joesixpack on July 04, 2020, 04:59:40 PM

For our reference, here's the source that your article uses for its' numbers:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/13/ten-questions-and-answers-about-americas-big-government/

According to that report, there are about 20M employees of the government(all levels). My estimate is between 16M (direct employees of government) and 25M (when you include contract, grant, military, and postal employees)

My estimate of 15% of our workforce was actually higher than the report, but it was close.

So, we agree on the current size of government.

Where else do you want to steer our conversation?

how about the fact that you claim the number of federal employees has not changed in 40 years when I show you how that is not true. Or do you like to just gloss over that part?

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
how about the fact that you claim the number of federal employees has not changed in 40 years when I show you how that is not true. Or do you like to just gloss over that part?

Truth is akin to holy water to a lib, they do their best to avoid even acknowledging it's existence.

Quote from: Possum on July 04, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
how about the fact that you claim the number of federal employees has not changed in 40 years when I show you how that is not true. Or do you like to just gloss over that part?

Officially, that's the case.



That's from the source document that George Will used to write the op-ed you posted.

Now, if you want to talk about Total Federal, State, Local, contract, grant, military, and post office employees, it's a different story.

So again, we've already agreed on the estimated total.

Where do you want to take us from here?