Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 250

Thread: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    So you're just saying "it's too complicated to think about actual policies, so I'll just go with blind partisanship". Right?
    No. Guess again.

  2. #122
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    No. Guess again.
    Well maybe you need to try working through your position more clearly or something because that's all I'm hearing you say- you dismissed the streamlining advantages without a reason then ranted about how you hate Obama.

  3. #123
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,081

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Why can't Congress merge these agencies?

    We don't need the President to take on extraordinary powers to do what Congress should do.
    1) Congress is incapable of doing anything, especially anything the President wants to have done.
    2) Congress will not do it as each of these agencies has some congressional over-site, which means some congressman has the title of chair of some pissant subcommittee that provides that over-site.

  4. #124
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I agree that there is some pure waste spending domestically. No doubt. I disagree about Obamacare and the NLRB (both of those actually reduce the deficit in my opinion), but I agree that there are some useless things that can be cut domestically. But the same is true with the military ($900 toilet seats!) and there are some particularly glaring issues with taxation on the rich like outright tax evasion too. In all three areas there is some low hanging fruit that just ought to be snatched up for sure. That said, in none of those three areas is there really enough of that kind of stuff to make a big dent.
    NLRB could be a whole other thread, so I won't go too deeply into that. We would probably never agree on it anyway lol. Obamacare as well. Honestly, I would like to see the easy cuts made and then see where we are. Reason being that politicians won't get rid of the easy stuff because it usually appeases certain special interest groups they want supporting them. They get rid of the easy stuff first, then we know where we are. After that, take a look at ridiculous regulations that hamper the market. Finally, you can look at taxes and how to maximize the effect of them with adjustments. Taxes should be looked at, but not first. Cuts and de-regulation should happen first. Then you have a true, unfettered market to tax.



    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    What I would do personally if I was in charge of the military would be to reduce it's size across the board, but spend more per soldier. I would like to see us focus more on more specialized capabilities. I want a good percentage of the troops ............
    This stuff is great for the current threats and its actually stuff we already do. I was on a combat adviser mission in Iraq from 07-08 and learned Arabic very well. The thing is, we aren't going to be in Afghanistan, etc, forever. We can't become too theater centric. Artillery for instance is the only all weather fire support system we have. If a jet can't fly to the target area because of low clouds or a sand storm, artillery is there to fill the fire support gap. We do this every war. We draw down, cut spending, become theater centric because we can't afford to train for more than one scenario, then get punched in the face with the next theater. Examples are WWI-WWII: Went from trench warfare to maneuver warfare. The machine gun greatly changed the battle field. We weren't prepared. WWII-Korea: Severe arctic environment where airborne couldn't be used. We weren't prepared. Korea-Vietnam: From arctic to jungle. We weren't ready for the guerilla tactics Vietnam-Cold War: Guerilla to huge arms race. Severly undergunned (this is where I think we're going this time) Cold War-Desert Storm: Only war where the last one translated. Then on to our current theaters. We came into Iraq in 03 ready for cold war era combat. The huge mess in Baghdad resulted and we failed to fill the power vacuum Saddam left. I will say the reaction to Afghanistan was the best of all theaters. However, we got lucky because A) We had a POTUS who would take the chance of letting Army Special Forces, CIA Paramilitary, and Marines go in there and actually do what they're trained to do and trust them and B) That theater was almost custom made for the aforementioned units. Our gov't needs to stop being so reactive to threats. I honestly believe we are in for a Cold War type environment. Once Iran gets a nuke (they will because politicians won't let us have another WMD escapade), it will turn into a nuclear standoff again. Then we'll be stuck being terrified of Iran launching a nuke for the next 10 years. We need to ensure the military has the money to be brilliant at the basics so that training to a specific theater only takes a month or two. If the military only has enough money to do specialized training for a particular theater, we get caught with out pants down.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #125
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,972
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    NLRB could be a whole other thread, so I won't go too deeply into that. We would probably never agree on it anyway lol. Obamacare as well. Honestly, I would like to see the easy cuts made and then see where we are. Reason being that politicians won't get rid of the easy stuff because it usually appeases certain special interest groups they want supporting them. They get rid of the easy stuff first, then we know where we are. After that, take a look at ridiculous regulations that hamper the market. Finally, you can look at taxes and how to maximize the effect of them with adjustments. Taxes should be looked at, but not first. Cuts and de-regulation should happen first. Then you have a true, unfettered market to tax.




    This stuff is great for the current threats and its actually stuff we already do. I was on a combat adviser mission in Iraq from 07-08 and learned Arabic very well. The thing is, we aren't going to be in Afghanistan, etc, forever. We can't become too theater centric. Artillery for instance is the only all weather fire support system we have. If a jet can't fly to the target area because of low clouds or a sand storm, artillery is there to fill the fire support gap. We do this every war. We draw down, cut spending, become theater centric because we can't afford to train for more than one scenario, then get punched in the face with the next theater. Examples are WWI-WWII: Went from trench warfare to maneuver warfare. The machine gun greatly changed the battle field. We weren't prepared. WWII-Korea: Severe arctic environment where airborne couldn't be used. We weren't prepared. Korea-Vietnam: From arctic to jungle. We weren't ready for the guerilla tactics Vietnam-Cold War: Guerilla to huge arms race. Severly undergunned (this is where I think we're going this time) Cold War-Desert Storm: Only war where the last one translated. Then on to our current theaters. We came into Iraq in 03 ready for cold war era combat. The huge mess in Baghdad resulted and we failed to fill the power vacuum Saddam left. I will say the reaction to Afghanistan was the best of all theaters. However, we got lucky because A) We had a POTUS who would take the chance of letting Army Special Forces, CIA Paramilitary, and Marines go in there and actually do what they're trained to do and trust them and B) That theater was almost custom made for the aforementioned units. Our gov't needs to stop being so reactive to threats. I honestly believe we are in for a Cold War type environment. Once Iran gets a nuke (they will because politicians won't let us have another WMD escapade), it will turn into a nuclear standoff again. Then we'll be stuck being terrified of Iran launching a nuke for the next 10 years. We need to ensure the military has the money to be brilliant at the basics so that training to a specific theater only takes a month or two. If the military only has enough money to do specialized training for a particular theater, we get caught with out pants down.
    This. Exactly. Plan the work, and work the plan. It's not rocket science, and yet...
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  6. #126
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinKohler View Post
    This. Exactly. Plan the work, and work the plan. It's not rocket science, and yet...
    Yeah, the yet.......is what kills us.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #127
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    This stuff is great for the current threats and its actually stuff we already do. I was on a combat adviser mission in Iraq from 07-08 and learned Arabic very well. The thing is, we aren't going to be in Afghanistan, etc, forever. We can't become too theater centric. Artillery for instance is the only all weather fire support system we have. If a jet can't fly to the target area because of low clouds or a sand storm, artillery is there to fill the fire support gap. We do this every war. We draw down, cut spending, become theater centric because we can't afford to train for more than one scenario, then get punched in the face with the next theater. Examples are WWI-WWII: Went from trench warfare to maneuver warfare. The machine gun greatly changed the battle field. We weren't prepared. WWII-Korea: Severe arctic environment where airborne couldn't be used. We weren't prepared. Korea-Vietnam: From arctic to jungle. We weren't ready for the guerilla tactics Vietnam-Cold War: Guerilla to huge arms race. Severly undergunned (this is where I think we're going this time) Cold War-Desert Storm: Only war where the last one translated. Then on to our current theaters. We came into Iraq in 03 ready for cold war era combat. The huge mess in Baghdad resulted and we failed to fill the power vacuum Saddam left. I will say the reaction to Afghanistan was the best of all theaters. However, we got lucky because A) We had a POTUS who would take the chance of letting Army Special Forces, CIA Paramilitary, and Marines go in there and actually do what they're trained to do and trust them and B) That theater was almost custom made for the aforementioned units. Our gov't needs to stop being so reactive to threats. I honestly believe we are in for a Cold War type environment. Once Iran gets a nuke (they will because politicians won't let us have another WMD escapade), it will turn into a nuclear standoff again. Then we'll be stuck being terrified of Iran launching a nuke for the next 10 years. We need to ensure the military has the money to be brilliant at the basics so that training to a specific theater only takes a month or two. If the military only has enough money to do specialized training for a particular theater, we get caught with out pants down.
    Good post and it is definitely great to hear the perspective of somebody who knows what they're talking about first hand. I definitely agree with your points about getting locked in to a particular theater being a mistake. But, I don't agree about the cold war argument. During the cold war we needed to prepare for conventional warfare against a roughly equally matched adversary. Iran isn't that with or without nukes. With nukes they may be somebody we can't invade, but they aren't somebody we're going to have a prolonged conventional war with, where we needed to be prepared for that possible outcome during the cold war even though it never happened (and maybe never could have given deterrence). I think we could most likely defeat Iran's conventional army handily with like 10% of our military. We defeated Iraq's military in what, 1 week? And then we spent 10 years acting as a police force, suppressing terrorism, trying to restore order, building the foundations of democracy, etc. I think that's going to be how most wars go at least for the foreseeable future, and I still don't think our present military is well suited for that. Do you disagree that we'll have more wars like that? Or do you think we are well suited to resolving them optimally?

  8. #128
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Good post and it is definitely great to hear the perspective of somebody who knows what they're talking about first hand. I definitely agree with your points about getting locked in to a particular theater being a mistake. But, I don't agree about the cold war argument. During the cold war we needed to prepare for conventional warfare against a roughly equally matched adversary. Iran isn't that with or without nukes. With nukes they may be somebody we can't invade, but they aren't somebody we're going to have a prolonged conventional war with, where we needed to be prepared for that possible outcome during the cold war even though it never happened (and maybe never could have given deterrence). I think we could most likely defeat Iran's conventional army handily with like 10% of our military. We defeated Iraq's military in what, 1 week? And then we spent 10 years acting as a police force, suppressing terrorism, trying to restore order, building the foundations of democracy, etc. I think that's going to be how most wars go at least for the foreseeable future, and I still don't think our present military is well suited for that. Do you disagree that we'll have more wars like that? Or do you think we are well suited to resolving them optimally?
    I believe invading Iran would pull China into the fray. That is where they get their oil, which is the only resource in the world right now that can bring countries to fight each other. However, if China did not, take a look at Irans terrain. We can't air drop with the intention of linking a beach head to the territory inland ala Normandy. We can't drive in. A beach landing is the only way in. All you have to do is take a look at casualty rates of opposed beach landings to see that we would lose A LOT of troops. That is, unless Iraq would let us come in from their side (very, very highly unlikely). Iran would be costly simply because they have terrain on their side. Terrain always drives operations. Its the one factor we can't change. We have to plan around it or fight despite it.
    I agree we are ill-suited for the police force stuff. Not for the reason you think though. For every 4 Marines pissing on a terrorist, you get a lot of guys doing things like this Captain A Tribute to Captain Travis Patriquin | Small Wars Journal. The fact is, higher leadership do not trust Marines and soldiers to do the things they need to do to win. I guarantee you the knee jerk reaction as a result of what those 4 Marines did is light years ahead of the reaction the Captain in the link got. I'll give you an example of ridiculous regulations. Lets say you see a 28-33 year old male, with a beard, a red bandanna wrapped around his face, a black head dress, military vest with magazine pouches, and all black clothes shooting at you from a window of a small hut. Suddenly, he stops shooting at you and ducks in the hut. 2 seconds later, an individual wearing the same clothes and with the same looks walks out of the front door of the hut without a weapon. You can't shoot him. You lost positive identification when he walked to the door. Lets not take into account you got a good look at him and you're not an idiot. According to high ranking officers (who are under pressure from Washington) we are idiots incapable of discerning that threat. Terrorists know this and exploit us everyday. That's why we're not good at being a police force. We can't even be trusted to be Marines and soldiers.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  9. #129
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    That's why we're not good at being a police force. We can't even be trusted to be Marines and soldiers.
    Well but aren't being a good policeman and being a good soldier totally different things? A policeman is there largely to establish justice. Due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, relationships with the community, insight from the community on what is going on in the area, etc. Collecting evidence to prove guilt, investigating. A soldier is there to establish control of an area with force. They can't take time to collect evidence first, they need to make blunt calculations in split seconds if they're going to survive. An effective soldier does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or due process. Somebody who does one of those things perfectly is doing the other thing terribly. I don't think it's a matter of being good Marines first, policemen second. It's more like an entirely different job. Some situations call for a soldier, others call for a policeman. How to sort that out I don't know, but it seems like a problem to me.

    Part of what I think the problem was is that the military leadership, at least in the early years of the war, seems to have thought of it like their role was purely to accomplish military objectives and somebody else would be coming along to deal with "civilian stuff". For example, think of the billions of dollars in damage that was done with all the looting. There were a number of statements from top military leadership basically saying that they didn't think it was any of their business. They didn't seem to appreciate that they were not just a force of people who were there to topple the previous government of Iraq, they were the new government of Iraq. All the responsibilities of a government fell to them and they didn't take them on at all at first, and even in the end just barely. And I can't blame them. The military isn't set up to provide all the services and capabilities of a government. But that's what we need. A military that can topple a government and immediately step in to provide at least the basic governmental functions. I don't think we have that yet.

    I blame Bush for the failures of the early years in Iraq. It's an outgrowth of the naive assumption many conservatives make that something like a thriving, peaceful, democratic, capitalist society is basically the default. If you remove oppression, that's what you get. Well that isn't true. If you remove an oppressive regime, you get anarchy, starvation, disease, chaos, terrorism and economic collapse. You only get the thriving society by building it one block at a time. If we want a military that is going to be able to tear down oppressive regimes, we also need a military that is capable of standing up something workable to replace it very fast.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-15-12 at 02:44 AM.

  10. #130
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,849

    Re: Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    1) Congress is incapable of doing anything, especially anything the President wants to have done.
    2) Congress will not do it as each of these agencies has some congressional over-site, which means some congressman has the title of chair of some pissant subcommittee that provides that over-site.
    Then we need to get people in Congress who will do what we want.

    Look, if it takes a President asking Congress for the power to do what THEY should be doing, then we are in a world of sh@@. But giving the President that power will only make things worse. If Obama were serious about shrinking the size of government he should tell Congress...and BOTH Parties...to get off their dead @sses and do it.

    And if Obama really wants to be taken seriously, he should start with Obamacare...not Commerce.
    Last edited by Mycroft; 01-15-12 at 05:37 AM.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •