RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies

RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

nighthawk3569 -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 3:08:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven No. Bleeping. Way. The federal government, especially the executive branch, has been steadily usurping power for years. It's gotten worse under Bush and Obama. Not that coincidentally, as Congress has become increasingly less relevant, it's morphed from a serious governmental decision-maker into a bunch of weenies concerned only with grandstanding, blocking legislation, and amassing campaign war chests. Ponder, for one moment, the effect of having an out of control executive branch excused from Congressional oversight. Although the reasoning this time might be something praiseworthy, the longterm effect of cutting Congress' power will be the increased growth of the executive branch, as well as less reason to force Congress to actually DO and BE something. Well said! The White House has more power than it should be allowed, now. Don't give it any more. In fact, some of it's power should be restricted or taken away. 'hawk Edited for spelling...not content

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 3:08:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Ya know, this is really confusing. Conservatives have complained for years, bitterly, about the cost of government. Regardless of who's fault it was (hint, everyone's) we have all agreed something must be done. I can see not everyone is happy with this decision, feeling its just a political trick. So, then the question that begs to be answered is... If not this, then what? Anything but what Obama puts forward, seems to be the consensus here so far:)

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 3:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 Let me first say that I don't trust the motives of President Obama in this. I don't like most of his ideas and policies. I also question why this wasn't offered back during the huge fight over how to manage the debt ceiling. That being said, if this is done correctly it is a good idea. There are a lot of departments in the government that are either too big or no longer needed. If they were eliminated or streamlined it would be a good thing. If this happens, I see it ending up as a bunch of token moves so Obama can state he is for smaller government, even though his other actions during his term state otherwise. This is a re-election ploy, thats all. while I disagree with you on a couple of points, I heartily agree with this "Still, it is a good idea, and denying that because the person who brought it up is someone I don't agree with on most things would be foolish." Im sure it will be a long time before its finalised, and there will be lots of dissent and or agreement from all sides. but I think that is an excellent attitude to have. Just my 2 cents

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 3:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl “It’s not often that we see real proposals from this administration to make government smaller,” said Rep. Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “I look forward to reviewing the proposal and hope that it will be the first of many to unravel the red tape.” Well, jeez, Freddy, you could have taken the initiative and begun the process of "cutting the red tape" yourself, you know. Disingenuous posturer.

Musicmystery -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 3:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic A start, or a token gesture, Tazzy? Yes, Tim, it's very much apples and oranges between what conservatives think of as reducing government, and what our President is trying to do to capture some of that theme for his own use. That it's self-serving, no doubt. That anyone would then turn away that progress toward their own objectives would just be foolish spite. It's a start, even as a gesture. Maybe the next one will feel the pressure, Rep. or Dem.

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the stableboy died in the workhouse or debtors prison What lovely traditions you must have, Lucy. Around these parts, he had a few drinks and a whining session, then got a job parking cars.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:06:27 PM)
you were talking about before the automobile Rich, be genuine for once and yes, debtors prisons and workhouses were common in victorian/edwardian England. and where poor people landed up when they couldnt work or got sick or got injured on the job Until we decided humanty in general deserved better and banned them. My grandmother had nightmares until the day she died, over her existence in a workhouse, she was only there for a year. it affected her outlook for 75 years now if you want to talk about people who lose their jobs get sick and are denied healthcare because they cant afford it and die, you can tell me about lovely traditions

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:13:57 PM)
She said, quickly trying to change the subject. Feel free to start a healthcare thread, Lucy. Deliberate derailments are sorta frowned on at present.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic the stableboy died in the workhouse or debtors prison What lovely traditions you must have, Lucy. Around these parts, he had a few drinks and a whining session, then got a job parking cars. Nope pure lies and misinformation, we had debtors prisons and workhouses here as well.

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:30:00 PM)
LMAO I responded to youRich the fact that I included the difference between then and now and HC was to push the point HOME on your arrogant snark They were horrible traditions and the reason things changed to what happens now. simple. Report it if you think it was off topic. eidted to add quote quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Appeal to emotion. See the "job-killing technology thread," and ask a stableboy how he felt about the expansion of the automobile.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 4:40:31 PM)
quote: Let me first say that I don't trust the motives of President Obama in this. I don't like most of his ideas and policies. I also question why this wasn't offered back during the huge fight over how to manage the debt ceiling. With all the infighting? I truly dont think it would have passed. It wouldnt have a chance in hell now except the elections are coming up. Hard to say no and mean it when you have to face your constituents the next day and ask for their vote.

SilverBoat -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 5:18:22 PM)
Politics aside (which it probably will never be, thanks to various psychosociopaths), having so much of the government agencies split into overlapping and conflicting portfolios of authority, regulation, etc is ridiculously inefficient, and doesn't promote employment for anybody but otherwise useless lawyers and beaurocratic parasites. Sure, the CRC Manual has 4,000(-ish) pages listing hundred-thousands of chemicals, but at least they're all in one place that anybody who needs to know could look them up, and find critical information listed, such as whether a given substance is toxic or not, a suspected or unknown or non-carcinogen, and concise rules for production, disposal, allowed exposure, etc. The same approach could be arranged for biological entities, starting with organic molecules and extending through genomes, or for land-ownership, personal, business etc taxes. and so forth. Yeah, that would be a huge project, and very complex, but it would be less simpler and more functional and more transparent. Why isn't that being done with government agencies? Is it merely because of the agencies themselves resisting change, or have the politicians and lobbyists keeping things fouled up and convoluted on-purpose? ...

erieangel -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 7:19:55 PM)
It just so happened that Obama campaigned on the issue of eliminating redundancy in government--not necessarily to make it smaller which I know all the conservatives on here will scream about--but to make things more efficient. But it needs to be a well thought out plan, not some half baked idea cooked up solely in the name of "smaller government". Look what has happened in AZ. The conservative government there in '09 sold their state house, and other state assets, including maximum security prisons for just over $700 M. For the state house, they got something $81M and have been paying rent on the place since. Now, just two years later, Brewer wants to buy it back--at a cost of $20million over what it was sold for. Smaller government? Not so much, a shady transfer of wealth from the tax payers to the real estate buyer--of course.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 8:10:38 PM)
Would be interesting to see that paper trail, erie. Just who owns it and who stands to profit from all that.

tweakabelle -> RE: Obama seeks power to merge agencies (1/15/2012 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel It just so happened that Obama campaigned on the issue of eliminating redundancy in government--not necessarily to make it smaller which I know all the conservatives on here will scream about--but to make things more efficient. But it needs to be a well thought out plan, not some half baked idea cooked up solely in the name of "smaller government". Look what has happened in AZ. The conservative government there in '09 sold their state house, and other state assets, including maximum security prisons for just over $700 M. For the state house, they got something $81M and have been paying rent on the place since. Now, just two years later, Brewer wants to buy it back--at a cost of $20million over what it was sold for. Smaller government? Not so much, a shady transfer of wealth from the tax payers to the real estate buyer--of course. If it helps, here's how John Quiggan, Professor of Economics (James Cook University) summed up the Australian (and overseas) experience of privatisation as long ago as 1996: "Privatisation has been a popular policy in the last decade, particularly in the English-speaking countries, but there is little evidence that it produces sustained economic benefits once the illusory short-term effect of reductions in the reported Budget deficit is exhausted. In the United Kingdom, which led the world in privatisation, the much-lauded 'Thatcher miracle' collapsed in the recession of 1989-91 and the government, having sold off nearly all the assets at its disposal, found itself in severe budgetary difficulties by 1993. The pathbreaking privatisation of British Telecom is now widely recognised as a textbook example of how not to go about privatisation. The similarly overpraised New Zealand 'miracle' appears to have stalled in the past year, with GDP growth rates falling behind those of Australia and unemployment rising. Over the past decade, GDP per capita in New Zealand has fallen by around 15 per cent relative to Australia. The analysis presented above, along with analyses of recent privatisations such as that of the Commonwealth Bank (Quiggin 1995) and Commonwealth Serum Laboratories (Hamilton and Quiggin 1995) demonstrates that privatisation is a bad deal for Australian taxpayers. In the face of such evidence the advocates of privatisation offer nothing more than dogmatic assertions of faith in the market and appeals to fashion, based on the claim that since other countries are privatising, Australia should do likewise. This view should be rejected. (my emphasis) http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/Submissions/Telstra1.html

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125