Patrick.net

Rand Paul destroyed on facts by Krugman

By iwog   Follow   Mon, 10 Sep 2012, 1:34am   9,629 views   222 comments
In Lafayette CA 94549   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (5)   Dislike (5)  

Rand Paul not only lies, but exaggerates his lie by saying "growth of government is enormous under Obama".

Repeat: Everything Republicans believe and preach about the economy is a lie. It's an entire universe of fantasy and NONE OF IT is true.

PAUL: The thing I don’t understand is that you're arguing that the government sector is struggling. Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than there were under Bush?
KRUGMAN: Of course. That’s a fact. That’s a tremendous fact.
PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama.
KRUGMAN: If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we’d have a million and a half more people employed right now — directly.
PAUL: Are there less people employed or more people employed now by government?

In case anyone is interested, the hard number for government employment dropped by around 600,000 after Bush left office.

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 183-222 of 222     Last »     See most liked comments

1. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

   183   10:17am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says Source? Labor of statistics. and here: http://iroots.org/2012/09/11/senator-rand-paul-vs-paul-krugman/ and I quote: "Under President Obama, the federal workforce has grown by 143,000 according to the Labor Department. That’s a lot of new federal workers, though it pales in comparison to the enormous growth of government spending and debt accrued in his same Administration." iwog - hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahah

2. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

   184   10:22am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   freak80 says Correct. And this voluntary exchange evolved into monopolies and trusts. The game Monopoly is based on voluntary exchange and also results in...well...monopoly. Do you believe monopolies and trusts are capitalism? freak80, why don't you, instead of playing monopoly game and believing sKool propaganda actually open your eyes, explore, and start thinking? Outside of government monopolies, or government appointed monopolies, there were NEVER EVER EVER any monopoly. Yes, carnegie made awesome steel and cheapest price, and was able to grab big market share. but he was never a monopoly. Ditto for rockefeller - he cut oil prices by 90%, yet he never got over 20% of oil market share. Today facebook is the best social media site, but it's not a monopoly. ditto for google search engine, or apple iphone. Today they are up, tomorrow someone else will outcompete them - unless government gets involved and props someone up (think AT&T in 70s). apple should watch out for samsung, google for microsoft, and german big three should watch out for koreans Everything you learned in high school and college regarding economics or history - is government propaganda served as truth. Result is, people like iwog are running around spitting pre-programmed government propaganda verdicts, and looking ridiculous.

3. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   185   10:28am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   "PAUL: No, the size of growth of government is enormous under president Obama." (notice it doesn't say federal government) Then there's Shrek's reply: Ruki says Conservatives count ALL the government employees that have been hired under Federal SPENDING during the Obama years. And since most of the 'stimulus' money was given to the states with the total understanding that that money would be really used to keep state employees employed instead of on infrastructure (we were totally lied to), then it is true that the number of government employees under Obama budgets have increased. I always love it when Foxbots are forced to argue with other Foxbots. Go tell Ruki that he screwed up. LOL Of course we can measure job growth per capita, which shows a SHARP decline across the board for both state and federal: Or we can narrow EVERYTHING down to the BEST possible light and assume Rand Paul was talking about ONLY federal employees and ONLY in nominal terms, and we'll even accept your link that federal jobs increased by 143,000. So total federal employment is about 4,443,000, and of course 143,000 is a tiny fraction of the total, so according to Rand Paul, "enormous growth" = less than 1% per year. Congratulations Alex!!!! By ignoring all the facts that are actually relevant to the issue, and by pretending Rand Paul said something he didn't, and by making the silly assertion that less than 1% is "enormous", you can be right kinda! Well guess what. Rand Paul is a fucking moron and Krugman was dead on accurate. Now answer my question and stop running away like a scared little rabbit.

4. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

   186   10:31am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   AlexS, There's something called ratio of numbers to get a sense of the real picture. They teach that in public sKool, which you probably skipped ;)

5. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

   187   10:32am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   iwog says I always love it when Foxbots are forced to argue with other Foxbots. Go tell Ruki that he screwed up. LOL All these fact based arguments are making their head explode. Get ready for sewage thrown at you, you libtard commie.. hehe.

6. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   188   10:33am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Just an addendum to the above wrecking of Alex. The majority of increase in government employees under Obama is..............wait for it..............military personnel!!!!!!!! Oh yes it is: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp Romney wants to MASSIVELY grow the military if he wins office. Total absolute failure. Republicans remain a pathetic clown show and everything they say regarding the economy is a lie.

7. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

   189   10:34am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says So total federal employment is about 4,443,000, and of course 143,000 is a tiny fraction of the total, so according to Rand Paul, "enormous growth" = less than 1% per year. hahahahahahah iwog, the argument was whether government grew (Paul) or shrunk (Krugman). Question: if government adds 143,000 jobs (while the rest of the economy, particularly in the private sector is SHRINKING), is it growing, or is it shrinking? Another question: if government spending is growing enormously (even more so than it's growth in employment), and government debt goes from$10T to $16T, is it growth (Paul) or decrease (Krugman). iwog - hahahahhaahhahahahahahaahaahaaahahaahaaahaaahaaahahhahahhahh iwog, you can try to look more and more ridiculous by spinning it all you want, bulking government growth under obama with shrinkage in government in lybia or burkina faco, or categorizing jobs, or whatever, but the bottom of line is: hahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah

8. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   190   10:36am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says iwog, the argument was whether government grew (Paul) or shrunk (Krugman). Exactly right. Your failure is in pretending the argument was only about federal jobs when the states receive a huge amount of federal money to create state government jobs. You're wrong but you'll never admit it. Ask one of your elementary school teachers to define "government" for you. AlexS says Question: if government adds 143,000 jobs (while the rest of the economy, particularly in the private sector is SHRINKING), is it growing, or is it shrinking? The economy hasn't been shrinking since 2008 under George Bush. The economy has grown every year since. YOU can't even get your facts right. Pathetic. To answer your question, if the government adds 143,000 jobs but the growth is less than the growth in the economy, it's shrinking. See my graph above.

9. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

   191   10:38am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)   iwog says Exactly right. Your failure is in pretending the argument was only about federal jobs when the states receive a huge amount of federal money to create state government jobs. hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaahhaha JOBS UNDER OBAMA. OBAMA is the US PRESIDENT. Jobs under Obama are Federal Jobs. hahahahahahahahahahha poor iwog, just let this one go. just delete this thread (or ask patrick to delete it) - stop embarassing yourself!

10. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    192   10:39am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says JOBS UNDER OBAMA. OBAMA is the US PRESIDENT. Jobs under Obama are Federal Jobs. How about the money the federal government spends on state jobs?

11. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    193   10:43am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Hmmmm.....another question you're going to run away from? Par. Rand Paul is an economic illiterate like most Republicans. Krugman was dead on correct. I think I've proven both beyond what was necessary.

12. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    194   10:51am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says How about the money the federal government spends on state jobs? Question wasn't about that. Question was - did Government jobs Under Obama increase? iwog, stop running around this simple question. Krugman - who is a government democratic shill - asked US Senator about government jobs under Obama. and US senator Rand Paul gave a simple and precisely correct answer - they INCREASED. but continue providing this circus for this forum, continue to pretend something else was being discussed. My suggestion - save your face. Delete this thread. Hide for next year or so, and come back under different nick.

13. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    195   10:52am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AlexS says Outside of government monopolies, or government appointed monopolies, there were NEVER EVER EVER any monopoly. Standard Oil was a monopoly until it was broken up in 1911. Perhaps you've heard of the Sherman Antitrust Act?

14. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    196   10:54am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says Question wasn't about that. Question was - did Government jobs Under Obama increase? I see. So you think money "spent" by Obama on state jobs, of which there is billions of dollars worth, isn't actually under Obama. Wow you're confused. I see you're cowering away from the whole "enormous growth" quote. Do you think a 00.7% increase in jobs per year is enormous, or is Rand Paul full of shit? AlexS says iwog, stop running around this simple question. I never ever run away from questions. I could NEVER be like you. The answer is no, government jobs under Obama did not increase. They decreased. A more complete answer, in fact an EXTENSIVE answer was provided above. The nominal job increases were almost entirely military personnel.

15. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    197   10:59am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says My suggestion - save your face. Delete this thread. Hide for next year or so, and come back under different nick. AlexS, Iwog is being a whole lot more mature than you are. Yes, a case can be made that less government involvement in the economy might be better. But you're not making it. Not by insulting people or using terms like Comrade and Skools.

16. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    198   10:59am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says So you think money "spent" by Obama on state jobs, of which there is billions of dollars worth, isn't actually under Obama. iwog, just go and hide somewhere. really dude, you are embarrassing yourself beyond belief. WE are not discussing state jobs, local jobs, or jobs in Sweden. Discussion is about jobs UNDER Obama. Obama is not the king, or governor of alabama - he is the US president. Jobs under obama are federal jobs. Enormous growth was a kind understatement by Rand Paul. Adding 143,000 parasites to federal rolls, while private sector is shrinking, while people are suffering is not enormous - it is suicidal and criminal! Raising debt from $10T to $16T is also not enormous, it is beyond the beyond of enormous. Question iwog - why aren't you hiding already? Have you no shame???

17. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    199   11:02am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says Enormous growth was a kind understatement by Rand Paul. Adding 143,000 parasites to federal rolls, while private sector is shrinking, while people are suffering is not enormous - it is suicidal and criminal! The increase in military jobs (I linked the numbers) is an increase in parasites? Why do you think US soldiers are parasites? The private sector is not shrinking. Again you're confused. Both the GDP and the total number of private jobs have INCREASED under Obama. AlexS says Raising debt from $10T to $16T is also not enormous, it is beyond the beyond of enormous. Obama had nothing to do with any of it save $1 trillion spent on stimulus.

18. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    200   11:02am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   freak80 says Standard Oil was a monopoly until it was broken up in 1911. Perhaps you've heard of the Sherman Antitrust Act? freak80, have you heard that 2+2=4? that's precisely how stupid your question is. Of course the US president installed by rockefeller's enemy J P Morgan issued that verdict. But it has nothing to do with reality. Dude... really... go to mises.org or somewhere and read up on the subject. You've been brainwashed by government for 12+ years, and can't even see that 2+2=4 because government textbook said it is 5. 20% at the peak is less than 100%...

19. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    201   11:04am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says The increase in military jobs (I linked the numbers) is an increase in parasites? Why do you think US soldiers are parasites? iwog, you are still here???????

20. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    202   11:05am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says iwog, you are still here??????? Of course I'm still here. I'm talking about the topic while you're acting like a child. Answer the question. Why do you consider US soldiers parasites?

21. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    203   11:13am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   C'mon Alex, this isn't complicated. You said 143,000 parasites. Most of the 143,000 new government employees were US soldiers. Therefore you believe US soldiers are parasites. So tell me. Why do you think US soldiers are parasites? Stop running and answer the question.

22. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    204   11:30am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says So tell me. Why do you think US soldiers are parasites? seriously dude, is it the best you can come up with - use some twisted logic to arrive to a ridiculous question? Why don't you first go hug your local TSA groper - their ranks are growing faster than anything else!

23. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    205   11:36am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says seriously dude, is it the best you can come up with - use some twisted logic to arrive to a ridiculous question? Twisted logic? It's your logic numbnuts: AlexS says Adding 143,000 parasites to federal rolls + http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp = You think the military personal, of which that 143,000 is mostly composed of, are a bunch of parasites. Why do you think US soldiers are parasites? If you honestly think my question has a false premise, perhaps you can tell me exactly what part of your views I don't understand? It's actually not even close. The OVERWHELMING majority of federal jobs added while Obama was in office, almost the entire 143,000, are military personnel. You didn't know that did you. Are you ready to retract your statement that they are parasites?

24. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    206   11:39am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says states receive a huge amount of federal money to create state government jobs. Do they? I admit, I did not know that. I figured state workers were funded by state taxes.

25. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    207   11:44am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   freak80 says Do they? I admit, I did not know that. I figured state workers were funded by state taxes. No, huge amounts of money are sent to the states via the federal government for government jobs. It's a rather large chunk and dwarfs most budgetary items. http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf

26. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    208   11:46am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says Twisted logic? It's your logic numbnuts: I see iwog is trying to divert attention and switch the subject but EVERYONE can see the title of this thread... What is the thread title here, iwog? That's right... Krugmanoid lied Kids died! hehe Now, regarding your pathetic attempts to call soldiers parasites, while implying i did, here is my answer - hahhahahahahahahahahahaha But this graph you posted made me curious - what is the definition of "Uniformed military personnel"? Are TSA gropers in or out? CIA spooks? DEA? ATF? FBI? just asking!

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    209   11:56am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AlexS says here is my answer - hahhahahahahahahahahahaha That's nice. So since you think the 143,000 new federal employees were parasites, and most of the 143,000 new federal employees were US soldiers, why do you think US soldiers are parasites? ....like a scared rabbit. AlexS says Now, regarding your pathetic attempts to call soldiers parasites I haven't applied the term parasites to anyone. You used the word, not me. I'm simply quoting you.

28. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    210   11:57am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AlexS says "Uniformed military personnel"? Are TSA gropers in or out? CIA spooks? DEA? ATF? FBI? just asking! The answer is no. None of those are included in uniformed military personnel. Now answer the question. Why do you think members of our military are parasites?

29. uomo_senza_nome Follow Befriend (13) 787 threads 1,542 comments

    211   11:59am Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   AlexS says I see iwog is trying to divert attention and switch the subject but EVERYONE can see the title of this thread... Not at all. He is arguing pretty much spot-on so far. Ya know, you have set up too many traps for yourself and the only way out is to admit you are wrong. But your ego won't let you do that, so you are going to run around in circles and now divert topics to other things.

30. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    212   12:05pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   uomo - I thought I was done with you, but you keep coming back for more. what is Big Apple? iwog, so under which column are TSA rapists included? FBI? CIA? ATF? KGB, I mean homeland security? oh, and while on the subject - stop calling all soldiers parasites!

31. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    213   12:05pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says No, huge amounts of money are sent to the states via the federal government for government jobs. It's a rather large chunk and dwarfs most budgetary items. Wow that's crazy. The Federal Gummint is even more powerful than I thought.

32. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    214   12:07pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Ok, AlexS just made my far-right troll list.

33. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    215   12:10pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   freak - happily returning the favor by putting you on my ignore list. I have no use of talking to you, I can read government propaganda anywhere on lame-stream media. as soon as I am done making fun of krugmonoid and rent-seeker, I'll add them as well.

34. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,534 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    216   1:00pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   AlexS says uomo - I thought I was done with you, but you keep coming back for more. what is Big Apple? iwog, so under which column are TSA rapists included? FBI? CIA? ATF? KGB, I mean homeland security? oh, and while on the subject - stop calling all soldiers parasites! I guess we're done. You refuse to answer simple questions, you refuse to do your own homework, and your views and responses are childish and stupid. I'm sure that merits another "hahahahahahaha" (which you will think is extremely clever) so go to it. Always a pleasure to cause a Republican drone to crash and burn.

35. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    217   1:06pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)   iwog, still awaiting TSA/FBI/DEA/ATF/KGB classification... don't cry little Krugmonoid don't you cry, mommy is gonna.. Also - plz hide your bipolar view, engineered by government propaganda brainwashing - you took in 12+ year sessions by calling me a "Republican". I am anything but.

36. jessica Follow Befriend (1) 12 threads 51 comments La Mesa, CA

    218   2:39pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Since I think using raw numbers is silly, especially when describing growth in employment, I took the number of federal jobs(http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp) and divided it by the population of people between 16-64 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/ERP-2012/ERP-2012-table34/content-detail.html). Unfortunately, I do not have 2011 numbers but here is a table from 2000-2010: 2000 2.26% 2001 2.23% 2002 2.22% 2003 2.22% 2004 2.18% 2005 2.13% 2006 2.11% 2007 2.08% 2008 2.10% 2009 2.20% 2010 2.18% One could probably argue that as population itself grows, the government should expand...and from 2000 to 2010, the population expanded by 9.6%.

37. leo707 Follow Befriend (12) 10 threads 3,516 comments Oakland, CA leo707's website Premium

    219   2:45pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   freak80 says Ok, AlexS just made my far-right troll list. Yes, AlexS went on my ignore list a long time ago. It is not so much the troll behavior that I mind, it is that with AlexS there is no real creativity or personality behind it. At the very least I like my trolls to be amusing and somewhat interesting. Boorish and boring is not worth my time.

38. jessica Follow Befriend (1) 12 threads 51 comments La Mesa, CA

    220   2:49pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   And this is just for fun: 1962 4.98% 1963 4.80% 1964 4.69% 1965 4.61% 1966 5.12% 1967 5.49% 1968 5.59% 1969 5.44% 1970 4.95% 1971 4.53% 1972 4.10% 1973 3.93% 1974 3.85% 1975 3.76% 1976 3.65% 1977 3.59% 1978 3.54% 1979 3.42% 1980 3.38% 1981 3.35% 1982 3.31% 1983 3.32% 1984 3.32% 1985 3.40% 1986 3.35% 1987 3.36% 1988 3.32% 1989 3.30% 1990 3.24% 1991 3.16% 1992 2.99% 1993 2.85% 1994 2.74% 1995 2.62% 1996 2.52% 1997 2.41% 1998 2.36% 1999 2.29%

39. AlexS Follow Befriend (1) 1 threads 284 comments

    221   2:58pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   jessica says One could probably argue that as population itself grows, the government should expand...and from 2000 to 2010, the population expanded by 9.6%. No, it shouldn't expand, it should shrink and just go away. Chinese population is growing, yet their government has shrunk since the insane Mao levels. Also, the US government is expanding, jessica, more and more money is wasted. More and more contracts are dished out, and more and more money is paid to tax eating parasites - at all levels.

40. jessica Follow Befriend (1) 12 threads 51 comments La Mesa, CA

    222   4:19pm Wed 12 Sep 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   AlexS says Also, the US government is expanding, jessica, more and more money is wasted. More and more contracts are dished out, and more and more money is paid to tax eating parasites - at all levels Let's just say I retract that statement because it's too subjective, what do you say about the figures I presented? If I were to argue the point that it should expand, it would be that more people require more infrastructure and protection against terrorists and criminals, which is a sentiment shared across multiple parties. The facts as I presented them do show a trend toward a shrinking government, at least in terms of jobs since 1962, and another sentiment I often hear is that times are worse now than before.

« First     « Previous comments