White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

Deuce said:

Problem is the word "increase" is actually wrong entirely. It decreased. You know, the opposite of increase.

You can dance around all you want, but under no stretch of imagination or definition does "dramatic increase" equate to "decrease."

Click to expand...

Wow you guys don't like reviewing facts while taking others at thier word. rather ironic, no?

It only "decreases" if you take out DOD personnel, you cannot simply do this.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Wow you guys don't like reviewing facts while taking others at thier word. rather ironic, no?

It only "decreases" if you take out DOD personnel, you cannot simply do this.

Click to expand...

Actually I can absolutely ****ing do that because the decision made by the Trump administration specifically excludes military and security positions.

poweRob said:

Funny watching you guys tell us in one thread that Trump is president... get over it! Then when we talk about trump you do off-topic deflections to Obama and the past.

Click to expand...

I'm not deflecting. I commend the news organizations for fact checking politicians, especially after a hiatus from doing so these last eight years. I hope to see them continue this trend after Trump regardless of party affiliation of his successor.

I find no humor in those who mindlessly swallowed up anything from the WH as gospel truth for so long finally waking up. Welcome to the thinking world we've been waiting for you to do arrive.

ReverendHellh0und said:

"alternate facts" indeed.U.S. GAO - Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and Compensation You can't take out "DOD personnel" simply because it disproves your position.

Click to expand...

First it the Pubs who routinely exclude the DoD from Gubmint worker bashing.

Next trump makes it pretty clear the trend toward increasing DoD and HLD will not be hindered by his actions.

The third rail of liberal politics is the social safety net

The third rail of Conservative politics is military spending. Trump has vowed to 'rebuild' the military so I seriously doubt the DoD workforce will shrink.

If you think DoD has swollen it's ranks now, just wait... eace

Using media logic, if we take out people that are registered Democrats from Obama's inauguration then Trump had far higher attendance at his.

EDIT: Better yet let's just exclude California from the national vote, Trump wins popular vote....

Here is an interesting article regarding the statement.

As Trump Freezes Federal Hiring, AP Hides 'Dramatic Expansion' in Non-Postal Workforce

Deuce said:

Actually I can absolutely ****ing do that because the decision made by the Trump administration specifically excludes military and security positions.

Click to expand...

"The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”"


"Military Personnel" = Enlisted peoples, not Civilian GS-scale DOD employees.


I think you take these far left liberal kook liars that write these kind of propaganda articles without much critical thought.


They count on gullibility and willful ignorance.

notquiteright said:

First it the Pubs who routinely exclude the DoD from Gubmint worker bashing.

Next trump makes it pretty clear the trend toward increasing DoD and HLD will not be hindered by his actions.

The third rail of liberal politics is the social safety net

The third rail of Conservative politics is military spending. Trump has vowed to 'rebuild' the military so I seriously doubt the DoD workforce will shrink.

If you think DoD has swollen it's ranks now, just wait... eace

Click to expand...

what in the world are you on about now? :lol:

Chomsky said:

Well, I believe much of the gulf between the federal and civilian employees is not necessarily an excessive increase in federal compensation, but is the relative lack of increase (stagnation) in private compensation.

With the near death of private sector unionism, and the corps running Congress, there's really no one at bat for American workers.

But your point is valid: Why should federal employees receive compensation beyond that of the civilian work force?

However, there is one caveat to the stats above though. It may be possible the gov hires more specialized employees on average, than the private community at large. With their higher prevailing wages, they might be skewing the stats.

Click to expand...

Speculating here, but my guess is there is an apples to oranges comparison here. The federal government tends to have more high wage jobs on a job function to job function basis than the private sector as a whole.

The federal government does not have as many low wage job titles as the private sector. The federal government does not employ a lot of waiters, caregivers, retail sales people as their in the private sector, but rather clerks. Part of the difference is also benefits: government does pay benefits to low wage workers where the private sector has poor or no benefits for most of the low wage workforce.

apdst said:

The Federal work force didn't decrease recently.

Click to expand...

No, but neither was it a "dramatic expansion". Even by your own source, it grew 7% less under Obama than it did under Bush. The presentation by Spicer as if the growth was something "dramatic" in nature is ridiculous in context, unless "recent years" is meant to be 16 years

Zyphlin said:

No, but neither was it a "dramatic expansion". Even by your own source, it grew 7% less under Obama than it did under Bush. The presentation by Spicer as if the growth was something "dramatic" in nature is ridiculous in context, unless "recent years" is meant to be 16 years

Click to expand...

What is the threshold for "dramatically"?

That would be subjective, no?

apdst said:

I've already that the Federal work force reached a record level.

Click to expand...

But it didn't say it reached a dramatic level, which at least could be arguable. It said it was a dramatic expansion, which suggests it's talking about growth. And in that regard, it actually pales in comparison to the 8 years prior.

ReverendHellh0und said:

What is the threshold for "dramatically"?

Click to expand...

First, note your link is talking about 2004 through 2012. I already acknowledged, if "recent years" is including the Bush years as well as the Obama years, then I guess the statement would be accurate...though nearly a two decades worth of time is not really what I'd consider something commonly held as "recent".

Second, I would suggest that the threshold for "dramatically" would rely on the context of what's being talked about. In this regard, the context would be looking at the expansion that occurred prior to "recent years". If that expansion was significantly greater than what happened in "recent years", then I'd argue describing it as "dramatic" to be rather exaggerated in nature.

Yes, it's subjective. I've not suggested its anything other than that. However, you're under some misguided notion that the decisions that leads someone to make a subjective statement can't be questioned, or that subjective statement can't be criticized. That's not the case. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible to be rebutted or ridiculed.

ReverendHellh0und said:

What is the threshold for "dramatically"?

That would be subjective, no?


View attachment 67212974

Click to expand...

You're playing word games here. It wasn't dramatic by any real interpretation. What is it with you guys that you have a problem with actually calling Trump out on his **** and start playing word games to defend him?

Trump supporters are now even defending Trump by saying he didn't "lie" that he was going to release his tax returns, he "changed his mind" like that somehow miraculously erases his lie.

Zyphlin said:

First, note your link is talking about 2004 through 2012. I already acknowledged, if "recent years" is including the Bush years as well as the Obama years, then I guess the statement would be accurate...though nearly a two decades worth of time is not really what I'd consider something commonly held as "recent".

Second, I would suggest that the threshold for "dramatically" would rely on the context of what's being talked about. In this regard, the context would be looking at the expansion that occurred prior to "recent years". If that expansion was significantly greater than what happened in "recent years", then I'd argue describing it as "dramatic" to be rather exaggerated in nature.

Yes, it's subjective. I've not suggested its anything other than that. However, you're under some misguided notion that the decisions that leads someone to make a subjective statement can't be questioned, or that subjective statement can't be criticized. That's not the case. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible to be rebutted or ridiculed.

Click to expand...

1. read it. it was FLAT until 2008. it increased in 2008 as you can see. what happened in 2008 that increased it? who was the POTUS?

2. so if it's been flat for all those years, then you see a bump like this, could it' be argued that it was relatively dramatic. (I think dramatic is a little bit of hyperbole myself).

3. I hold no such opinion, but was simply opining myself as you were on the subject of "dramatically" .

Praxas said:

You're playing word games here. It wasn't dramatic by any real interpretation. What is it with you guys that you have a problem with actually calling Trump out on his **** and start playing word games to defend him?

Click to expand...

See above reply to zyphlin, I have done no such thing.

Trump supporters are now even defending Trump by saying he didn't "lie" that he was going to release his tax returns, he "changed his mind" like that somehow miraculously erases his lie.

Click to expand...

He completely lied about that, Why are you bringing this up with me?

Zyphlin said:

But it didn't say it reached a dramatic level, which at least could be arguable. It said it was a dramatic expansion, which suggests it's talking about growth. And in that regard, it actually pales in comparison to the 8 years prior.

Click to expand...

Right!

Zyphlin said:

No, but neither was it a "dramatic expansion". Even by your own source, it grew 7% less under Obama than it did under Bush. The presentation by Spicer as if the growth was something "dramatic" in nature is ridiculous in context, unless "recent years" is meant to be 16 years

Click to expand...

That could be a matter of opion. Right?

apdst said:

That could be a matter of opion. Right?

Click to expand...

Yes, but see my last post to Rev. Opinions can be criticized, and judgment of opinions can be called into question.

Someone could have an opinion that a 38 degree day is "blistering hot", but if the day before it was 50, that opinion is one that's probably going to be met with skepticism or eye rolling. If 38 is blistering hot, what was 50 degrees a day before; nuclear?

It's the same argument I made when people on this forum stupidly attempted to claim that Obama won in a "Landslide". If you're going to declare either of his victories as a "landslide", then how in the world are you describing what happened in 1984 or even 1988? Were those super gigantic enormous landslides? Or are you just using language that somehow equates the two in a desperate attempt to act like they're relatively equal when they clearly are not.

When you're looking at a 10% increase over the past 8 years, which is down 7% from the 8 years prior to that, and you're going to describe that 10% as "dramatic", then how in the world would you describe nearly twice that which we had prior to that point? If something still grows under Trump, but grows at a slower level than Obama, are we to believe that the manner in which this administration views things is that such a thing would still be "dramatic" because it ultimately was an increase, even though it was slower than his predecessor?

This is the problem with making statements with a hope that context is going to be ignored. In those circumstances, it just looks like simple language that's at best a legitimate subjective opinion. But when you actually start looking at the full context of things, it becomes pretty clear that it's a matter of opinion that's born from exaggeration and hyperbole, or from extreme selective measuring, which either way calls into the question the worth while notion of that opinion.

It also begs the question of why even say it. There was nothing that was forcing them to make that claim or give that reason for why the hiring freeze happened. They put that bit of hyperbole out for the purpose of selling their plan; as a consumer of what they're selling, just accepting what the salesmen says as straight fact is idiotic. And I go back to a truth I've had within politics, and from my time in sales....if it's not good enough to be sold on it's own that you have to exaggerate or misrepresent or hyperbolize, then why should I buy it? If it was good enough without the hyperbole and exaggeration, then you would've just went with that.

TheGoverness said:

How dare you!

Not fat. Just big-boned.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

They're not fat,they're fluffy.

:lol:

poweRob said:

The truth... it alludes this administration right out of the gates. Mr. "Alternative Facts" guy has now spewed this whopper:

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was only a few minutes into his press conference Monday afternoon before he made a statement that appears unsupported by the facts.

Listing three executive orders signed by President Trump on Monday morning, Spicer said the president “issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring … that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years … in particular it prevents filling vacant positions and creating new positions except where necessary to meet national or public security responsibilities.”

The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”

It is an article of Republican faith since the New Deal that Democrats have expanded the federal workforce, but statistics do not bear this out, at least in recent years. According to this chart from the Office of Personnel Management, federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014, the most recent year reported. Excluding the Department of Defense, the workforce remained almost exactly steady at 1.357 million.​

Click to expand...

They are several issues with your argument. Truly, you don't have an argument because you summarized the article. Therefore, I will expose the flaws in this careless story.

1.) Number one, this story coming from Yahoo. In my opinion, Yahoo does not have a good track record with their finances, IT (data breaches), frequently changing CEO's (Management issues), dismal market earnings, etc. Last year Verizon Wireless purchased the company to rescue them from bankruptcy. Not a surprise. Yahoo's demise started before the recession, so this was abounded to happen. Recently VW announced they are changing the name of Yahoo to "ALTABA" to give it a facelift or fresh start (We shall see if it works). Becuase of the flaws I mentioned above, I doubt their creditability regarding the story (Co. has a poor reputation).

2.) The link provided in the story comes from Office of Personnel Management. OPM numbers don't match the graph's presentation. Also, the source of the graph is produced by the Feds. Not sure how the Feds play a role in OPM data statistics but anyways the numbers and graph are not harmonizing. Either the graph is incorrect, or the OPM data is wrong.

3.) OPM's data does not include Postal Service, government contractors, and grantees employment numbers. Therefore, the missing data does not provide the full story.

Sources (Support):
Verizon is buying Yahoo for $4.8 billion - Jul. 25, 2016
Verizon'''s Deafening Silence on Yahoo Deal | Fortune.com
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...cutive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

poweRob said:

The truth... it alludes this administration right out of the gates. Mr. "Alternative Facts" guy has now spewed this whopper:

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was only a few minutes into his press conference Monday afternoon before he made a statement that appears unsupported by the facts.

Listing three executive orders signed by President Trump on Monday morning, Spicer said the president “issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring … that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years … in particular it prevents filling vacant positions and creating new positions except where necessary to meet national or public security responsibilities.”

The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”

It is an article of Republican faith since the New Deal that Democrats have expanded the federal workforce, but statistics do not bear this out, at least in recent years. According to this chart from the Office of Personnel Management, federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014, the most recent year reported. Excluding the Department of Defense, the workforce remained almost exactly steady at 1.357 million.​

Click to expand...

The only thing "exploding" will be the wealth of the 1%. They will get 69% of the $7.5 Trillion the treasury will lose over 10 years with Drumph's tax cut proposal. That's $5.1 Trillion for them if you do the math. Good luck making that up cutting Govt. jobs.. "The greatest job creator God has ever made" strikes again.:lol:

FrankieM said:

They are several issues with your argument. Truly, you don't have an argument because you summarized the article. Therefore, I will expose the flaws in this careless story.

1.) Number one, this story coming from Yahoo. In my opinion, Yahoo does not have a good track record with their finances, IT (data breaches), frequently changing CEO's (Management issues), dismal market earnings, etc. Last year Verizon Wireless purchased the company to rescue them from bankruptcy. Not a surprise. Yahoo's demise started before the recession, so this was abounded to happen. Recently VW announced they are changing the name of Yahoo to "ALTABA" to give it a facelift or fresh start (We shall see if it works). Becuase of the flaws I mentioned above, I doubt their creditability regarding the story (Co. has a poor reputation).

2.) The link provided in the story comes from Office of Personnel Management. OPM numbers don't match the graph's presentation. Also, the source of the graph is produced by the Feds. Not sure how the Feds play a role in OPM data statistics but anyways the numbers and graph are not harmonizing. Either the graph is incorrect, or the OPM data is wrong.

3.) OPM's data does not include Postal Service, government contractors, and grantees employment numbers. Therefore, the missing data does not provide the full story.

Sources (Support):
Verizon is buying Yahoo for $4.8 billion - Jul. 25, 2016
Verizon'''s Deafening Silence on Yahoo Deal | Fortune.com
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...cutive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

Click to expand...

I have a thread on this very topic and it is all 100% true. Drumph is the liar and by association so are you.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/276789-shrinking-federal-govenment.html

iguanaman said:

I have a thread on this very topic and it is all 100% true. Drumph is the liar and by association so are you.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/government-spending-and-debt/276789-shrinking-federal-govenment.html

Click to expand...

Apparently, you're brand-new to debating. Therefore, I will take it easy, so you can learn from your failures.

First, calling me, a LIAR does not support your case. That is your opinion, and an opinion is not a FACT. That's why you need support for your argument.

Second, giving me a link to make your case is laziness. Back your case by expressing your thoughts or ideas to debunk my argument. It seems you lack insight.

Third, the Labor Department has a different mission than OPM. "The purpose of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights." Meaning the DOL mission is not track the federal government workforce. Otherwise, Yahoo would refer to the DOL data not OPM data charts.

Fourth, OPM is responsible for the successful management of human resources across every Federal agency which addresses the topic of discussion "White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce."

Since I pounded your response without flexing, I advise not jump in the ring without doing your homework. Again, I'm taking it easy on you because you seem new to this. I have data sheets regarding the workforce of the Federal Government coming from OPM, so if you decide to reply be prepared to lose again.

Finally, if calling me a LIAR is the best argument you have prepared, please do not waste my time.

References for my case:
AllGov - Departments
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-ho...nsion-of-the-federal-workforce-192109239.html
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...cutive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

FrankieM said:

Apparently, you're brand-new to debating. Therefore, I will take it easy, so you can learn from your failures.

First, calling me, a LIAR does not support your case. That is your opinion, and an opinion is not a FACT. That's why you need support for your argument.

Second, giving me a link to make your case is laziness. Back your case by expressing your thoughts or ideas to debunk my argument. It seems you lack insight.

Third, the Labor Department has a different mission than OPM. "The purpose of the Department of Labor is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights." Meaning the DOL mission is not track the federal government workforce. Otherwise, Yahoo would refer to the DOL data not OPM data charts.

Fourth, OPM is responsible for the successful management of human resources across every Federal agency which addresses the topic of discussion "White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce."

Since I pounded your response without flexing, I advise not jump in the ring without doing your homework. Again, I'm taking it easy on you because you seem new to this. I have data sheets regarding the workforce of the Federal Government coming from OPM, so if you decide to reply be prepared to lose again.

Finally, if calling me a LIAR is the best argument you have prepared, please do not waste my time.

References for my case:
AllGov - Departments
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-ho...nsion-of-the-federal-workforce-192109239.html
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...cutive-branch-civilian-employment-since-1940/

Click to expand...

You have failed to prove your case so you decided to be condescending instead. There is nothing in your links that show a "dramatic expansion of the Federal workforce" and you know it.