Corporate Welfare: Corporate Welfare

[natina]

How would you like to pay only a quarter of the real estate taxes you owe on your home? And buy everything for the next 10 years without spending a single penny in sales tax? Keep a chunk of your paycheck free of income taxes? Have the city in which you live lend you money at rates cheaper than any bank charges? Then have the same city install free water and sewer lines to your house, offer you a perpetual discount on utility bills--and top it all off by landscaping your front yard at no charge?
Fat chance. You can't get any of that, of course. But if you live almost anywhere in America, all around you are taxpayers getting deals like this. These taxpayers are called corporations, and their deals are usually trumpeted as "economic development" or "public-private partnerships." But a better name is corporate welfare. It's a game in which governments large and small subsidize corporations large and small, usually at the expense of another state or town and almost always at the expense of individual and other corporate taxpayers.
Two years after Congress reduced welfare for individuals and families, this other kind of welfare continues to expand, penetrating every corner of the American economy. It has turned politicians into bribery specialists, and smart business people into con artists. And most surprising of all, it has rarely created any new jobs.
While corporate welfare has attracted critics from both the left and the right, there is no uniform definition. By TIME's definition, it is this: any action by local, state or federal government that gives a corporation or an entire industry a benefit not offered to others. It can be an outright subsidy, a grant, real estate, a low-interest loan or a government service. It can also be a tax break--a credit, exemption, deferral or deduction, or a tax rate lower than the one others pay.
The rationale to curtail traditional welfare programs, such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps, and to impose a lifetime limit on the amount of aid received, was compelling: the old system didn't work. It was unfair, destroyed incentive, perpetuated dependence and distorted the economy. An 18-month TIME investigation has found that the same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding the poor, it rewards the powerful.
And it rewards them handsomely. The Federal Government alone shells out $125 billion a year in corporate welfare, this in the midst of one of the more robust economic periods in the nation's history. Indeed, thus far in the 1990s, corporate profits have totaled $4.5 trillion--a sum equal to the cumulative paychecks of 50 million working Americans who earned less than $25,000 a year, for those eight years.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html#ixzz1R6ujzwT7




http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html

[natina]

corporate WELFARE IS FAR MORE ADDICTIVE then individual welfare


government subsidizes
tax breaks
bailouts
grants
low interest loans
no interest loans


Corporate welfare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare)


Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)


NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts,

Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare. And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:

neocons .



ORANGE COUNTY WAS PRIMARILY WHITE MIDDLE CLASS

and now because of the BUSH ERA,

the housing market scam,the stock market scandal,the pyramid schemers has become a place where............

take note people are driving around with NO CAR INSURANCE because they have to choose between eating,shelter and other basic

OR
paying for insurance

MANY insurance company warned me about orange county and not having full coverage/gap coverage etc......yada yada yada

once middle class people or going to get free groceries and other items because they are financial in trouble/have hit a low ect.....


THE OC WAS HIT HARD BY THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE I.E.
OVER EVALUATION OF PROPERTY VALUES,upside down mortgages,variable interest rate loans/high interest rate loans .


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Banking Mess
YouTube - ‪Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis
YouTube - ‪Bird and Fortune - Subprime Crisis‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g)


YouTube - ‪Subprime Banking Mess‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC31Oudc5Bg)


John Bird and John Fortune (the Long Johns) brilliantly, and accurately, describing the mindset of the investment banking community in this satirical interview.

[natina]

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)





http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg



More NEOCons on Welfare than Liberals. You have to


include Corporate Welfare, Pentegon Contracts, Agriculture, and Oil industries when talking about Welfare.

And the blood sucking Welfare winners are:


neocons

Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#_)

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130426&frmSearch=1#130426


neocons do not have to do this!;they just get free money

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=39&SortBy=DateCreated%20desc&SearchType=1&Author=xfean&DayFrom=30&DayTo=0&MessageID=130833&frmSearch=1#130833


Amazon.com: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) (9781591841913): David Cay Johnston: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51lanA6RJSL.@@AMEPARAM@@51lanA6RJSL (http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591841917#reader_1591841917)

[natina]

Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed http://www.theeroticreview.com/library/style/i/emoticons/regular_smile.gif

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:

Will the tide finally turn during an Obama Presidency? After analyzing Obama's economic positions (including health care, tax policies and budgeting), most economists say "yes!"

After eight years of the Bush Presidency, McCain style deregulation and tax policy that favors the rich, the American middle class has been taken hostage and told they will lose everything (trickle down financial ruin) if they do not bailout the big banks, investment firms and insurance companies. Bush & Cheney have perfected the panic mode wealth transfer that Naomi Klein describes so well in "The Shock Doctrine." This multi-trillion-dollar parting gift is their payback to the upper class that helped orchestrate their election

The middle class and poor get crumbs from measly "bailouts" such as the lackluster sub-prime mortgage assistance program and a tax rebate check for $600; while the rich get more tangible bailouts to the tune of billions. Capitalism for the middle class, socialism for the rich, indeed! This is what you get when corrupt Republicans and the Corporate sociopathic personality rule the economy. One of the ways to change this dynamic is to remove corporation's status as a separate entity unbound by individual consequences and place more responsibility on the executives that direct corporate actions.

We need to end the the welfare era for the rich via tax cuts, Halliburton / war "no bid" handouts, oil company gouging and corporate bailouts. Instead, the American government needs to lift the middle class with investments in education, job training, energy independence (from domestic oil companies too!), health care and economic programs such as small business development and tangible mortgage assistance.

The only choice for fiscal conservatives in this election is Obama. By electing Obama POTUS and other fiscally sympathetic representatives, the middle class can then exercise its newfound power over insurance companies, corporations and bankers. You want us to bail you out? Here are some of our demands:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-garibaldi-frick/upper-class-pillaging_b_135892.html

[yodajazz]

There's some good stuff here. But dont they always claim, that corporate tax breaks, and other incentives create jobs? There was a big controversy here, years ago, when a owner mover a favorite sport franchise to another city. Thanks for the post, Natina.

I thought this was an interesting quote from the Times article:

The justification for much of this welfare is that the U.S. government is creating jobs. Over the past six years, Congress appropriated $5 billion to run the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which subsidizes companies that sell goods abroad. James A. Harmon, president and chairman, puts it this way: "American workers...have higher-quality, better-paying jobs, thanks to Eximbank's financing." But the numbers at the bank's five biggest beneficiaries--AT&T, Bechtel, Boeing, General Electric and McDonnell Douglas (now a part of Boeing)--tell another story. At these companies, which have accounted for about 40% of all loans, grants and long-term guarantees in this decade, overall employment has fallen 38%, as more than a third of a million jobs have disappeared

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989508,00.html#ixzz1SpsNmeMh

[trish]

Yes, luring a corporation to open a store or a factory in your town by offering it economic incentives (I.e.,corporate welfare) will create jobs. But being a larger entity with more capital and having the extra economic advantages afforded by the public-private icentives, the cororation will undersell and drive to ruin all of the smaller businesses in your town. So jobs will also be lost. This scenario has been playing out all over the U.S. as it witnessed by empty squares all over rur America. This isn't a new phenomena either. It's been going on for more than two decades.

[Stavros]

Would it help if large corporations were restricted in the regions in which they operate, allowing more small and medium sized enterprises to step in? There could be like an exclusion zone around small towns outside the large cities like LA and San Francisco, because the capital and marginal costs favour large corporations rather than smaller start-ups. But then you have the problem that larger corporations particularly supermarkets, can undercut the costs of smaller providers. The trend in the UK, as far as I can see it, is that niche marketing advantages, for example, farmers markets and independent butchers and fishmongers if they can sell at competitive prices better quality produce than Tesco, they do develop a loyal customer base; and outside food, the UK is doing ok in small-scale niche engineering products which nobody else makes. It doesn't solve the problem of high unemployment in young people who don't have the skills to do even light engineering, but its all we seem to have. Large corporations pay substantial sums in tax revenue, and hire tax lawyers to reduce even that, so there is plenty of fat at the top end (Exxon, IBM, Microsoft) -apaprently governments like their meat lean...

[robertlouis]

Large corporations pay substantial sums in tax revenue, and hire tax lawyers to reduce even that, so there is plenty of fat at the top end (Exxon, IBM, Microsoft) -apaprently governments like their meat lean...

But just because large businesses use creative and innovative accounting methods to avoid paying corporation tax shouldn't mean that governments should give up on finding increasingly inventive ways of their own to catch the bastards.

[Faldur]

Its laughable to look at the Progressives on this board continue to wail about how everyone else needs to pay more so there out of control spending can continue.

[robertlouis]

Its laughable to look at the Progressives on this board continue to wail about how everyone else needs to pay more so there out of control spending can continue.

If that's a dig at me amongst others I presume you think it's ok for large corporations to make no contributions to the national economies that host them?

And for the record I fully accept that current levels of government spending can't be sustained without a radical restructuring of national and global finances and a significant increase in economic activity.

[Stavros]

Its laughable to look at the Progressives on this board continue to wail about how everyone else needs to pay more so there out of control spending can continue

My point was non-partisan: the methods are there for government's to collect more in taxes, or to introduce new tax bands, or new laws: revenue from business is one crucial component of the whole, the thread is about corporations not citizens.

[Faldur]

If that's a dig at me amongst others I presume you think it's ok for large corporations to make no contributions to the national economies that host them?

And for the record I fully accept that current levels of government spending can't be sustained without a radical restructuring of national and global finances and a significant increase in economic activity.

Well for the record my Corporation has paid 28% - 31% annually for 19 years on its profits. Maybe our fault was not being on obama's economic advisory panel like the ceo of GE, which paid a whopping 0% on 5 billion in profits.

[yodajazz]

Its laughable to look at the Progressives on this board continue to wail about how everyone else needs to pay more so there out of control spending can continue.

I and others here, have not said that there shouldn't be cuts in spending. Several here have simply said that some increase in revenue should be part of the overall equation. This is the line in the sand. After research, from discusssion on the board, I believe that even many tax credits, such as the child tax credits, should at least be reduced. This would effect some of the poorest. Given the recent history, with 8 million jobs lost, the average homeowner losing 1/4 of the value of their home wealth, outsourcing and wars, what is so wrong with those over making over $200,000, sacrificing as well as the rest of us? I say go the pre-war tax level. And dont give me that bs about them creating jobs. Middle class demands create the most jobs.

I have a personal philosophy to be thankful for whatever I have. I dont see people like you as being thankful. All your focus seems to be on your money, damn anyone else who may happen to be suffering, or born less fortunate. I see the negativity towards othe Americans, to be the worst factor of all in this mess. I dont hate anyone, but I do feel that the current trend of the wealthiest gaining a greater percentage of the total wealth, is not the best for the long run.

One more thing, that fact that GE, paid no taxes for the last two years, is a symptom of a problem. It was even written that they have an 82 million dollar cash reserve. Government policy helps them with foreign investment, while they have cut 20,000 jobs in recent years. But this nation created an environment that help them to grow.

[yodajazz]

Well for the record my Corporation has paid 28% - 31% annually for 19 years on its profits. Maybe our fault was not being on obama's economic advisory panel like the ceo of GE, which paid a whopping 0% on 5 billion in profits.
It is comendable that your corp has paid what seems to be a fair share of taxes. In the case of GE, I share your concern/outrage.

[Faldur]

I and others here, have not said that there shouldn't be cuts in spending. Several here have simply said that some increase in revenue should be part of the overall equation.

We have grown the size of government over 20% in the last 2 1/2 years. IMHO we have a serious spending problem. And until that is addressed and corrected I don't feel any increases in taxes should be on the table.

[trish]

We have the lowest tax rate in 60 years and the largest spending rate ( thanks to two republican wars and necessary expenditures to avert a collapse of the commercial banks). Deficits accumulate when more money is going out than in. We need to bring spending down and revenue up. Even 75% of republicans when polled say favor bringing both sides toward the middle; i.e. cut spending, close tax loopholes and raise taxes on the wealthy to the level they were under Reagan. Not just my opinion but that of most Americans.

The current debt ceiling "crisis" ( which I put in quotes because it entirely caused by the political grandstanding of the GOP) is a separate issue independent of future spending. The debt ceiling is about paying on past debt or defaulting. I like to think Americans aren't deadbeats. But if we do default, our credit rating will diminish and interest rates will go up. Everyone will feel it. It quite definitely won't create jobs. But that seems to be what the GOP wants. A failing economy is just what they want going into an election cycle. They're willing to sacrifice your job, your retirement, your country's national security for a chance to secure the White House.

[Faldur]

We have the lowest tax rate in 60 years and the largest spending rate ( thanks to two republican wars and necessary expenditures to avert a collapse of the commercial banks).

The current debt ceiling "crisis" ( which I put in quotes because it entirely caused by the political grandstanding of the GOP) is a separate issue independent of future spending.

And we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Wonder why all our jobs left the country? Do you conveniently leave out the 3 wars currently underway by the democrat in chief? Or have you not heard we are at war with Libya, surged Afghanistan, and still have troops in Iraq. As far as I know, I could be wrong, but George W. Bush can not end any of the wars currently being fought. He is nothing more than a citizen of our country. Our coward in chief is the only one that can do it, and he just doesn't seem to want to.

It takes two for a standoff, the House passed a bill and sent it to the Senate and they refused to vote on it or even try and amend it to their liking. Your "its all there fault" falls on deaf ears, ridiculous.

[BluegrassCat]

We have grown the size of government over 20% in the last 2 1/2 years.

This is an absurd claim. Since Obama's inauguration we have actually lost 500,000 public sector workers, effectively shrinking the size of government by a small but real 2.2%.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i269/Megworen/publicsectorjobs.jpg

[Faldur]

Ahh.. isn't from $3.035 trillion to $3.618 trillion a 19.2% increase? I don't think its an absurd claim BG, I think I'm definitely in the ball park, if not spot on.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/sr0078/sr78_chart1.ashx?w=600&h=1043&as=1

[BluegrassCat]

Ahh.. isn't from $3.035 trillion to $3.618 trillion a 19.2% increase? I don't think its an absurd claim BG, I think I'm definitely in the ball park, if not spot on.

Words matter. You claimed the SIZE of the government has increased, not government SPENDING. The size has shrunk, while spending has gone up, mostly automatic programs that kicked in in response to Bush's economic collapse as well as new efforts to stop the bleeding.

[Faldur]

Words matter. You claimed the SIZE of the government has increased, not government SPENDING. The size has shrunk, while spending has gone up, mostly automatic programs that kicked in in response to Bush's economic collapse as well as new efforts to stop the bleeding.

My apologies, yes I meant government spending.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

Those "cuts" in the OP political cartoon aren't only for the wealthy. They are for the middle class and wealthy (200K and up). And they are not "cuts." Bush merely took away the increases that Clinton imposed and put them back to the original, normal pre-Clinton rates.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

Words matter. You claimed the SIZE of the government has increased, not government SPENDING. The size has shrunk, while spending has gone up, mostly automatic programs that kicked in in response to Bush's economic collapse as well as new efforts to stop the bleeding.

The size has shrunk? Since when?

The size of the government has not shrunk.

[yodajazz]

And we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Wonder why all our jobs left the country? ...

A simple fact check shows that three nations have higher tax rates. Most notably Japan.
Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/350px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg/350px-Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world)

I'm not just talking about the nations listed in the graph posted here, but a larger list in the article. Seven nations have an equal tax rate of 35%, and six more are 33%, or greater, but less than 35%. And we know for a fact that tax codes, include many exceptions based upon public policy. The US tax rate varies from 35% to 0%. 35 does not equal 0.

I dont know. I lived in a time when being an American (US citizen) meant something. We supposedly valued things like freedom, and education. Now it seems to be, fuck the US, we business owners can get lower tax rates in Saudia Arabia, China, or Russia.

But being a human is more than just money and material goods. Humanity has prospered because of communal living. There are community values such as looking out for the sick protecting the young, and in fact educating them for future leadership. Nations are an extension of communities, with similar values reaching out to the collective whole. The Republican debt limit crisis, is one that focuses soley on money, ignoring things which have help humanity to prosper. The nation and the world have had crises in recent years to which our government has responded. In past times, people recognized that some sacrifices were needed to address crises. But as Trish has stated in her post, it's about really about power and nothing else. And I would add that this power includes formula so that the richest can gain more, no matter what happens to everyone else.

[yodajazz]

We have the lowest tax rate in 60 years and the largest spending rate ( thanks to two republican wars and necessary expenditures to avert a collapse of the commercial banks). Deficits accumulate when more money is going out than in. We need to bring spending down and revenue up. Even 75% of republicans when polled say favor bringing both sides toward the middle; i.e. cut spending, close tax loopholes and raise taxes on the wealthy to the level they were under Reagan. Not just my opinion but that of most Americans.

The current debt ceiling "crisis" ( which I put in quotes because it entirely caused by the political grandstanding of the GOP) is a separate issue independent of future spending. The debt ceiling is about paying on past debt or defaulting. I like to think Americans aren't deadbeats. But if we do default, our credit rating will diminish and interest rates will go up. Everyone will feel it. It quite definitely won't create jobs. But that seems to be what the GOP wants. A failing economy is just what they want going into an election cycle. They're willing to sacrifice your job, your retirement, your country's national security for a chance to secure the White House.
:claps:claps:claps

[Stavros]

Trying to calculate precisely what tax rates are is a complex topic: the Wikipedia graph for example does not include Value Added Tax (there is a separate page for VAT), and also does not list all the taxed goods that we have.

For most people in work, there is income tax and national insurance, which pays for the National Health Service. These are taken directly from the employer and show up on your wage slip each month. The key 'duties' or taxes on products are on alcohol, tobacco and petrol/gasoline. The tax on tobacco is supposed to discourage people from smoking but earns the govt so many billions a year its really a cash cow, as is gasoline. But unemployed people do not pay tax, and low earners have tax relief.

We pay VAT because there is no 'sales tax' as you have in the USA. Obama has made a big mistake by not dropping sales taxes and replacing it with VAT which is exempt on a variety of items but which, generally could earn the USA billions of $$ a year. Conservatives call these 'stealth taxes' because they are indirect, but have become a hugely important source of revenue.

The money is there, as we have said before: how it gets divided up is the issue.

[Silcc69]

A simple fact check shows that three nations have higher tax rates. Most notably Japan.
Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world)

I'm not just talking about the nations listed in the graph posted here, but a larger list in the article. Seven nations have an equal tax rate of 35%, and six more are 33%, or greater, but less than 35%. And we know for a fact that tax codes, include many exceptions based upon public policy. The US tax rate varies from 35% to 0%. 35 does not equal 0.

I dont know. I lived in a time when being an American (US citizen) meant something. We supposedly valued things like freedom, and education. Now it seems to be, fuck the US, we business owners can get lower tax rates in Saudia Arabia, China, or Russia.

But being a human is more than just money and material goods. Humanity has prospered because of communal living. There are community values such as looking out for the sick protecting the young, and in fact educating them for future leadership. Nations are an extension of communities, with similar values reaching out to the collective whole. The Republican debt limit crisis, is one that focuses soley on money, ignoring things which have help humanity to prosper. The nation and the world have had crises in recent years to which our government has responded. In past times, people recognized that some sacrifices were needed to address crises. But as Trish has stated in her post, it's about really about power and nothing else. And I would add that this power includes formula so that the richest can gain more, no matter what happens to everyone else.


What kills me is the same "republicans" will go on how this is suppose to be a "christian" nation. But would Jesus do half of things they do to keep a buck?

[BluegrassCat]

The size has shrunk? Since when?

The size of the government has not shrunk.

The size HAS shrunk. Check the thread.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

The size HAS shrunk. Check the thread.

False and no.

[trish]

There's an argument!:rolleyes: I won't be hiring you as a lawyer anytime soon.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

There's an argument!:rolleyes: I won't be hiring you as a lawyer anytime soon.

My point exactly. It's as strong an argument as:


The size HAS shrunk. Check the thread., which is the "argument" I replied to.

And if you could afford me (which I'm sure you couldn't since I am in-house with a global corp.), I, of course, would offer an argument worthy of my price instead of a zero-cost response to Blugrass's unsupported claim followed by a command on a public tranny message board (if you can even call what I wrote an argument, which it wasn't in the first place).

[yodajazz]

What about the statistic that government as a whole has 1/2 million less employees? If your reference that government has not shrunk, refers to the number of departments, for example, why not state your own definition, of size. At least we could be discussing the same thing.

[Lawyer4Trannies]

What about the statistic that government as a whole has 1/2 million less employees? If your reference that government has not shrunk, refers to the number of departments, for example, why not state your own definition, of size. At least we could be discussing the same thing.

WOW! You got me there! Guess I'll be going now! Byeeeeeee! :claps

[BluegrassCat]

WOW! You got me there! Guess I'll be going now! Byeeeeeee! :claps

I don't know what you did Yoda but be sure to remember it for the next time a troll comes calling.