• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama seeks 'consolidation authority' to merge agencies

teamosil said:
If you have some conspiracy theory, feel free to produce evidence for it. If you think the full text of the proposal would fuel your conspiracy theory, feel free and find that and use it as you see fit. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out the difference between a plan and a proposal. Do you understand the difference?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
So let me understand you correctly. Republican efforts at deficit reduction = irrational, impossible, political, posturing. Democrat efforts at deficit reduction = reasonable, fair, just, effective, correct. Glad you've disavowed the claim that Obama is more concerned with deficit reduction than Republicans, that was starting to get absurd.
Click to expand...

Why is it that Republicans only care about debt reduction when they are out of power, but increase the debt when they are in power?
 
Antiderivative said:
Why is it that Republicans only care about debt reduction when they are out of power, but increase the debt when they are in power?
Click to expand...

Good question, I wish it wasn't true.
 
teamosil said:
If you have some conspiracy theory, feel free to produce evidence for it. If you think the full text of the proposal would fuel your conspiracy theory, feel free and find that and use it as you see fit. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory? Really? REALLY? No, I feel that any plan/policy should be substantiated in writing. For instance, BHO provided a written proposed budget. You know the one that didn’t get one Yea vote in the Senate. Any article that states ‘According to senior administration officials’ or ‘the officials said’ I cannot take seriously without proof. I’m sure they have good intentions but I prefer to see it in writing.

Also consider per your link:

The president considers his call for tax changes to “start the debate”-
Start for debate…really? This is the plan?

1.2 trillion in discretionary cuts that were already enacted in the Budget Control Act passed by Congress
It included cuts ALREADY PASSED??? Is this legitimate?
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
Good question, I wish it wasn't true.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be nice as it would be nice to have anti-war democrats who were actually anti-war, not just anti-Republican war.

Just imagine...
 
teamosil said:
It isn't mathematically possible to fix the deficit without raising taxes on the rich unless you're willing to completely destroy the country. 75% of people in this country say they support including revenues in a solution to the deficit, including mind you the majority of Republicans. You can't possibly compare that to a ridiculous stunt like the BBA. The GOP needs to accept that their super rich benefactors are going to have to chip in like everybody else or this can't get done. Period.
Click to expand...

Technically it is mathematically impossible to fix the deficit by raising taxes only on the rich, especially if Medicare costs are not addressed immediately. The 75% you speak of have been misled by the ‘tax the rich’ rhetoric. How do you think they will react when they find out that the ‘rich’ will include those with incomes as low as $30k? Remember the Bush tax cuts reduced the LOWEST bracket from 15% to 10% and if they sunset EVERYBODY gets a tax increase. This is what we will see at the end of this year! The question is how the Democrats will explain to those 75% how the ‘tax the rich’ rhetoric really meant everyone.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
So let me understand you correctly. Republican efforts at deficit reduction = irrational, impossible, political, posturing. Democrat efforts at deficit reduction = reasonable, fair, just, effective, correct.
Click to expand...

No, not all Republican deficit reduction efforts. By all means the proposals they have made many serious deficit reduction proposals. But you need to learn to be able to distinguish the real ones from the ones that are just designed to grandstand for voters. The ones that they know for an absolute fact will never stand any chance of passing like the BBA or the Ryan plan are indeed just political posturing so that they can say on their campaign ads that they fought against spending or whatever without actually having to do anything. This particular house majority has been really fond of those things. I don't know if they just think their base is stupider than previous politicians did or what, but it's really striking. But that doesn't mean that they aren't actually doing real proposals too. They are.

Rhapsody1447 said:
Glad you've disavowed the claim that Obama is more concerned with deficit reduction than Republicans, that was starting to get absurd.
Click to expand...

What? No... He is more serious about deficit reduction than the Republicans for sure. I keep repeating this... Democrats, including Obama, are willing to work on the deficit on all three fronts. Republicans, only one.

Rhapsody1447 said:
Hmmm, spending cuts = reduction in expenses. Tax hikes = projections of future revenues. Considering our most prized economists can't predict next quarter's GDP accurately, what makes you think our politically motivated federal government can accurately project revenues 10 years into the future?
Click to expand...

They can't very accurately. Not sure what your point is. Are you saying revenues are hard to predict, so we should just ignore them? Uh... Nah.

Rhapsody1447 said:
You claim the GOP postures whenever they propose anything serious yet believe that Democrats proposing equally radical ideas is honest reform. Something tells me you aren't being entirely honest with yourself.
Click to expand...

What equally radical ideas have the Democrats proposed? They haven't proposed anything as ridiculous as either the BBA or the Ryan plan.. Not even in that same ballpark.
 
Antiderivative said:
Why is it that Republicans only care about debt reduction when they are out of power, but increase the debt when they are in power?
Click to expand...

The Tea party is a primarily Conservative movement. It arose because enough Conservatives felt that no one was attentive enough to small government. It primaried GOP incumbants.

So, while the GOP needs more work, things are not as you so shallowly state. It is the liberals that want the bigger gubmit teat. All of them.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
"General" fast track was also about a specific -- but different power.
Click to expand...

Good grief. So what? It has nothing to do with the power being discussed here. I think you're so determined to score a point that you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore; you're just arguing.
 
teamosil said:
What equally radical ideas have the Democrats proposed? They haven't proposed anything as ridiculous as either the BBA or the Ryan plan..
Click to expand...

Its impossible to tell as they (or you) have failed to substantiate their proposals with specificity. How's that coming?
 
Dickieboy said:
Conspiracy theory? Really? REALLY? No, I feel that any plan/policy should be substantiated in writing. For instance, BHO provided a written proposed budget. You know the one that didn’t get one Yea vote in the Senate. Any article that states ‘According to senior administration officials’ or ‘the officials said’ I cannot take seriously without proof. I’m sure they have good intentions but I prefer to see it in writing.

Also consider per your link:

The president considers his call for tax changes to “start the debate”-
Start for debate…really? This is the plan?

1.2 trillion in discretionary cuts that were already enacted in the Budget Control Act passed by Congress
It included cuts ALREADY PASSED??? Is this legitimate?
Click to expand...

You guys are so lazy! Just lazy! You would rather spend 10 minutes rambling conspiracy theories denying things that virtually every person in the country is aware happened than 10 seconds googling!

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
 
Harshaw said:
Good grief. So what? It has nothing to do with the power being discussed here. I think you're so determined to score a point that you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore; you're just arguing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you're always wrong. Toughen up, girl. :shrug:
 
Dickieboy said:
Technically it is mathematically impossible to fix the deficit by raising taxes only on the rich, especially if Medicare costs are not addressed immediately.
Click to expand...

Right. We need to tax the rich AND cut domestic spending AND cut military spending.

Dickieboy said:
The 75% you speak of have been misled by the ‘tax the rich’ rhetoric. How do you think they will react when they find out that the ‘rich’ will include those with incomes as low as $30k? Remember the Bush tax cuts reduced the LOWEST bracket from 15% to 10% and if they sunset EVERYBODY gets a tax increase. This is what we will see at the end of this year! The question is how the Democrats will explain to those 75% how the ‘tax the rich’ rhetoric really meant everyone.
Click to expand...

The Democrats don't want to let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody. They want to let the ones for the rich expire only and renew the ones for everybody else.
 
teamosil said:
You guys are so lazy! Just lazy! You would rather spend 10 minutes rambling conspiracy theories denying things that virtually every person in the country is aware happened than 10 seconds googling!

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. Undoubtedly the searches I performed resulted in returns that included the 2012 Budget proposal, quite embarrassing.

Note the deficits (allowing ALL BTC's to sunset, continue budget control act, eliminate 'doc-fix') will reduce to $349b in 2018 before rising again. The total debt increase project by 2021 will be $4,687t. Table S-4. Does this sound good?

Also consider the $4.4t claimed includes those savings already passed in the budget control act which is estimated at $1.2t so the $4.4 claimed is actually $3.2.
 
Dickieboy said:
Thank you for this. Undoubtedly the searches I performed resulted in returns that included the 2012 Budget proposal, quite embarrassing.

Note the deficits (allowing ALL BTC's to sunset, continue budget control act, eliminate 'doc-fix') will reduce to $349b in 2018 before rising again. The total debt increase project by 2021 will be $4,687t. Table S-4. Does this sound good?

Also consider the $4.4t claimed includes those savings already passed in the budget control act which is estimated at $1.2t so the $4.4 claimed is actually $3.2.
Click to expand...

Projections going out to 2021 are about as useful as a magic eightball. Remember when the CBO pojected a 2001 - 2011 surplus of $5.6 trillion? :lol:

What happened there? Hint: rhymes with tush.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
But you need to learn to be able to distinguish the real ones from the ones that are just designed to grandstand for voters. The ones that they know for an absolute fact will never stand any chance of passing like the BBA or the Ryan plan are indeed just political posturing so that they can say on their campaign ads that they fought against spending or whatever without actually having to do anything. This particular house majority has been really fond of those things. I don't know if they just think their base is stupider than previous politicians did or what, but it's really striking. But that doesn't mean that they aren't actually doing real proposals too. They are.
What equally radical ideas have the Democrats proposed? They haven't proposed anything as ridiculous as either the BBA or the Ryan plan.. Not even in that same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Again, thanks for providing the resource. To the ‘know for absolute fact will never stand a chance’, you know the President’s proposal included:

Payroll tax cut
Enable SBA access to capital
Extend 100% expensing
Prevent teachers/Firemen layoffs
Tax credits for career readiness
Promote veteran hiring
Modernize 3500 schools
Investments in road/rail/airports
Establish infrastructure bank
Promote employment rehabilitating homes/business/communities
Expand nationwide wireless internet
Preserve UI benefits
Tax credits for hiring long term unemployed
Invest in low income youth
Combat unemployment discrimination
Help homeowner refinance

These are just in the American’s job act only and do not include the 17 pages of crap on ‘Mandatory savings’, 9 pages of ‘Health Care’ and 8 pages of ‘Tax reform’.

Does this even sound like it had even a remote chance of passing? Really? A lot of this stuff sounds real good but we must realize we cannot afford it. I would seriously question if it would pass in '09 when there were 60 Dems in the Senate.
 
AdamT said:
Projections going out to 2021 are about as useful as a magic eightball. Remember when the CBO pojected a 2001 - 2011 surplus of $5.6 trillion? :lol:

What happened there? Hint: rhymes with tush.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point. I thank you for that. Also consider using the same magic eightball to predict growth which is the basis for their savings.
 
1) I applaud Obama for trying to reach across the aisle. I don't like the 90 day thing though. I think that is a subtle way of saying he doesn't like the time limit put on the Keystone Pipeline. However, the Keystone Pipeline is time sensitive, this issue is not. That is purely my theory though, I have no proof of that. I also suspect that more will be written into the bill than just consolidation. If he tries that, I think it would be a huge blow to the government in general, not just left or right. Someone will be the bad guy and we know who that will be.

2) In addition to consolidation, I think abolishing some agencies would be good. Some suggestions are:
TSA: 8.1 billion- HOLY CRAP!!! Privatize this right away.
National Labor Relations Board: 2010 Budget: $287 Million Push this to states and stop its ability to do what it did to Boeing. The Fed should pass general guidelines that each state must provide, then the state has the right to make it more strict, but not more lenient.
Agricultural Marketing Service: 2010 Budget: 3.1 Million
National Endowment of the Arts: 2010 Budget: $167.5 Million
National Endowment for the Humanities: 2011 Budget: $161.3 million
US Commission of Fine Arts: 2010: 1.2 Million
The last 3 are especially infuriating. Why, in a recession, do we need this stuff? I know the money is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit. Any little bit helps though.

3) One problem with this. By consolidating these agencies, we put more power in fewer people's hands. That scares me with any gov't, left or right. We've all seen what happens when a few have power instead of many independent checks. Thats why abolishment works better than consolidation.

Why do conservatives feel the need to be long ball hitters all the time? When did we become so grandiose? Liberals (of either party) use the slow, steady method of getting these ridiculous agencies and this ridiculous spending passed. You hear congressmen say it all the time. "That one little program won't make a difference." Every little bit helps when we have the deficit we do. We, as conservatives, need to take advantage of this opening Obama has given. We need to be "gracious" that he has come to the middle. We need to ask him to alter the time limit he has set to a more reasonable time. I would offer 180 days and hope he comes to 120. That gives them 4 months. Plenty of time. Offer that if he proposes the consolidations he wants, the Congress must maintain the power to execute them, and will offer a counter plan to him by 90 days. That gives him another 30 days to look it over, equaling a solution in 120 days. No public outings of "Obama wanted this guy to be here or that guy to have that power". Boehner needs to keep his mouth shut, work on the deal, and get it to him in 90 days, to meet the 120 day limit. I am a Tea Partier. I rail against Obama with every chance I get. However, we need to do what's good for the country and exploit this opening he is using to get re-elected and make some real cuts. Once the deal is done, and Obama is done with his predictable posturing about why they didn't consolidate as much as he wanted, go public with the differences. Tea Partiers in the House need to grow up and learn some lessons from Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Both reasonable guys who get things done without sacrificing their integrity. In simple terms, become more cunning and stealth rather than blunt and loud.
 
AdamT said:
I'm sorry if you're always wrong. Toughen up, girl. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah. You need to make a relevant point for that to happen.
 
IMO, Obama or perhaps one should say Axlerod has as usual come up with yet another hopey changey thingy.

IF Obama was that anxious to reduce size of Government, why did he not propose this 3 years ago when first elected.

Personally I am extremely averse to giving any President more power than they already have, as usually they take the extra power and before much time has passed, they make themselves a permanent Leader, in much the same vein that Chavez has done in Venezuela.
 
Dickieboy said:
Again, thanks for providing the resource. To the ‘know for absolute fact will never stand a chance’, you know the President’s proposal included:

Payroll tax cut
Enable SBA access to capital
Extend 100% expensing
Prevent teachers/Firemen layoffs
Tax credits for career readiness
Promote veteran hiring
Modernize 3500 schools
Investments in road/rail/airports
Establish infrastructure bank
Promote employment rehabilitating homes/business/communities
Expand nationwide wireless internet
Preserve UI benefits
Tax credits for hiring long term unemployed
Invest in low income youth
Combat unemployment discrimination
Help homeowner refinance

These are just in the American’s job act only and do not include the 17 pages of crap on ‘Mandatory savings’, 9 pages of ‘Health Care’ and 8 pages of ‘Tax reform’.

Does this even sound like it had even a remote chance of passing? Really? A lot of this stuff sounds real good but we must realize we cannot afford it. I would seriously question if it would pass in '09 when there were 60 Dems in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Most those things either were actually passed separately or were concessions to the Republicans... The rest seem pretty non-controversial like combating unemployment discrimination.. So yeah, I don't see why that would not have a chance of passing...
 
teamosil said:
Most those things either were actually passed separately or were concessions to the Republicans... The rest seem pretty non-controversial like combating unemployment discrimination.. So yeah, I don't see why that would not have a chance of passing...
Click to expand...

First note that the list only a partial summary of one section of the proposed act. You are correct that many of the things were passed separately but that proves your point, BHO presented a proposal and had to know the 'absolute fact will never stand a chance’. In your words it was 'indeed just political posturing...'
 
Dickieboy said:
First note that the list only a partial summary of one section of the proposed act. You are correct that many of the things were passed separately but that proves your point, BHO presented a proposal and had to know the 'absolute fact will never stand a chance’. In your words it was 'indeed just political posturing...'
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting that from. The fact that they were actually passed shows that they not only stood a chance of passing, but they actually did pass. That's even better than a chance!
 
teamosil said:
Not sure where you're getting that from. The fact that they were actually passed shows that they not only stood a chance of passing, but they actually did pass. That's even better than a chance!
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry you're right. BHO had absolute confidence in the proposal as an entire package he broke it into pieces and merely passed a few of the components.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom