Well, it probably is.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe via email
RSS Feed
Posts
Comments
About Write on Nevada
Contributors
Blog Archive
Blog Roll
-
As The Vatican Turns2 hours ago
-
The jig is up, Kitty Jung6 hours ago
-
Obama's America1 day ago
-
Do People Matter?4 days ago
3 comments:
"Size of Government" as shown on your graph is not the same as "Government Spending", which is what you are really saying in your piece. Be direct and objective in your work, it's not that I don't agree with what the ultimate message is, it just comes off as a bit twisted when you label something one way, and verbalize it in a way that is not synonymous. Spending, as you know, can increase/decrease regardless of a change in the size of government.
There are many ways to measure the size of the government.
Overall spending, spending as a percentage of GDP, spending per capita, how many pages of regulation, how many civil servants.
How would you define it?
I think the most accurate and DIRECT way to define it is by those employed in government positions. If we're going to talk about spending, let's call it "government spending", if that's by a percentage of GDP or per capita, let's put that in the graph. If we're talking about size/amount of regulation, let's address it that way. It's just more objective that way... something this video clearly doesn't incorporate, as you mouth says one thing, while the graph shows a gross generalization for some form of visual support.
Post a Comment