Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

  1. #21
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    If Obama wants smaller government and consolidation, why doesn't he start in his own house? Since the first of the year, he has appointed two new czars, claiming that he could do this since congress is in recess, it isn't.
    Cordray isn't a czar because there is an advice and consent requirement. If the Senate wanted to exercise that authority they had every opportunity to do so.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    Real Republicans do not want to twist or spin this idea at all. The true Republicans want to cut spending and reduce government.

    The real spin masters are the Democrats who will campaign on smaller government while actually working to increase the size, spending and influence of government.

    One would think that a real liberal would want a smaller government, if for no other reason, to get government out of their daily lives.
    Careful that your partisanship doesn't blind you. For Republicans forget that Eisenhower started the Dept. of Transportation, Reagan started the Dept of Veteran's Affairs while GW Bush started the Dept of Homeland Security. All worthwhile government agencies, but you completely ignore their roles in "increasing the size of government" except when it's a Democrat who does it. Of course, once someone brings these things to your attention you're quick to defend them as being "necessary". Well, many will say that the IRS is "necessary", that the EPA is "necessary", that the Dept. of Education is "necessary", that the Social Security Administration is "necessary". I, however, tend to take a different approach and ask, "Are these agencies productive, efficient, or relevent?"

    If a true, non-partisan, non-bias audit shows that there is duplication of effort, redundency, waste, fraud and abuse, and that any federal agency has not lived up to its mandate as structured under the law that created or modified these agencies, then in my book it's time to get rid of them. And if "consolidation" is "necessary" to streamline and standardize the tasks these agencies were created to perform and save taxpayers money, why in the world would can those who claim to be for a "smaller, more efficient government" be against it?

    Don't let your partisanship get in the way of progress and/or improvement in government just because the person seeking such has a "D" before their name instead of an "R".

  3. #23
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,855

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Where do you get these silly pronouncements? It makes no sense at all and bears no relationship to reality.
    Actually, it does...on both accounts.

    Liberals want to make sure everyone makes a living wage...and they want the government to enforce it.
    Liberals want to make sure everyone has health care...and they want the government to enforce it.

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea, eh?
    TANSTAAFL

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

  4. #24
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Actually, it does...on both accounts.

    Liberals want to make sure everyone makes a living wage...and they want the government to enforce it.
    Liberals want to make sure everyone has health care...and they want the government to enforce it.

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea, eh?
    So living wage + heatlh insurance = "Real liberals want the government to take care of EVERYTHING in their lives"?

    I don't think so.

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,864

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Liberals want to make sure everyone makes a living wage...and they want the government to enforce it.
    Liberals want to make sure everyone has health care...and they want the government to enforce it.
    If one earns a wage, that is NOT the government taking care of everything. That is just silly talk.

    Over the top hyperbole in the pursuit of extremist ideology shows itself to be nonsense.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    ROFLMAO! ....and then some!

    That is the funniest thing I've ever seen or heard in American politics. Really? Obama is going to be a small government advocate? Oh, please, stop. No, really, stop it. I'm going to pass out from laughing so hard.
    Thanks for taking the time to articulate your point with specifics...you know the reasons why...

    The only ones laughing are us... at you.

  7. #27
    Educator a777pilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Flower Mound, in the basement
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 08:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    815

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Careful that your partisanship doesn't blind you. For Republicans forget that Eisenhower started the Dept. of Transportation, Reagan started the Dept of Veteran's Affairs while GW Bush started the Dept of Homeland Security. All worthwhile government agencies, but you completely ignore their roles in "increasing the size of government" except when it's a Democrat who does it. Of course, once someone brings these things to your attention you're quick to defend them as being "necessary". Well, many will say that the IRS is "necessary", that the EPA is "necessary", that the Dept. of Education is "necessary", that the Social Security Administration is "necessary". I, however, tend to take a different approach and ask, "Are these agencies productive, efficient, or relevent?"

    If a true, non-partisan, non-bias audit shows that there is duplication of effort, redundency, waste, fraud and abuse, and that any federal agency has not lived up to its mandate as structured under the law that created or modified these agencies, then in my book it's time to get rid of them. And if "consolidation" is "necessary" to streamline and standardize the tasks these agencies were created to perform and save taxpayers money, why in the world would can those who claim to be for a "smaller, more efficient government" be against it?

    Don't let your partisanship get in the way of progress and/or improvement in government just because the person seeking such has a "D" before their name instead of an "R".
    I have not forgot a thing.

    Just because they may have an "R" behind their name does not mean they are always correct.

    We have way too much government.

    We could get rid of most of it and do a better job at what government is suppose to do.

    I would have no philosophical problem with doing away with...

    The Department of Veteran's affairs....Oh, yes I am a retired US Marine, too.

    The Department of Transportation.

    The Department of Of Homeland Security.

    There are others that need to go, too. Chief among these are Education and Energy.
    I came into this world fighting, screaming and covered in someone else's blood. I have no problem going out the same way.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Actually, it does...on both accounts.

    Liberals want to make sure everyone makes a living wage...and they want the government to enforce it.
    Liberals want to make sure everyone has health care...and they want the government to enforce it.

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea, eh?
    If you understood the tenants behind conservatism, you'd understand why liberals want these things.

    Conservatism says that if you allow businesses to form their own internal unions - that is, make their own rules as to how to government their business practises - they'd pay a fair wage and take care of their employees. Conservatism also says that business and churches should take care of those individuals who society has forgot. "Charity begins at home." For business, that means that they not government at any level using taxpayer dollars, takes care of the needs of the communities where they are. Problem is, that's not happening right now and the people have taken notice.

    Now, don't get it twisted. Non-profit and some for-profit charities are helping people get through their personal struggles on a variety of levels - food, shelter, medical and in some cases education needs. And some of these charities are new, formed by individuals who have seen a need to give generously of their time, their energy, their resources. But you don't see much of that coming from big business these days, the entity backed by conservatism which said that "if we get rid of big labor, we can do things better while also providing a lifing wage to our employees". Well, with the economy the way it is, manufacturing jobs outsourced overseas, the wealth/investor-class still making money far and away from what the middle-class/working-class makes because their wages have remained flat for years, how do you defend your claims as quoted above?

    Answer: YOU CAN'T!

    Again, however, don't get it twisted because I am not defending labor unions. They've made their share of mistakes, too. But the way I see it, all labor unions were trying to do is be that intermidiary of "fairness" between big business and their employees. But if you study the history behind unions you'll find that their goal wasn't to destroy businesses but rather to ensure that workers were treated fairly. Only, they got greed and alittle wreckless just as big corporations did - and still are to a large degree. But as was the case when the housing bubble burst and the economy took a nose-dive, where business fails their employees, government, churches and charities try to pick up the slack. In short, government has stepped into the fray because as GW Bush told us all "Corporate America was in no position to fix itself"...until TARP and ARRA were enacted to help stablize things. Set partisanship aside long enough to read, study, understand what's really happening out there and how things fell apart and what it's liable to take to pull things back together to make this nation stronger and more viable.

  9. #29
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    ROFLMAO! ....and then some!

    That is the funniest thing I've ever seen or heard in American politics. Really? Obama is going to be a small government advocate? Oh, please, stop. No, really, stop it. I'm going to pass out from laughing so hard.

    It's an election year... can anyone tell?
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by a777pilot View Post
    I have not forgot a thing.

    Just because they may have an "R" behind their name does not mean they are always correct.

    We have way too much government.

    We could get rid of most of it and do a better job at what government is suppose to do.

    I would have no philosophical problem with doing away with...

    The Department of Veteran's affairs....Oh, yes I am a retired US Marine, too.

    The Department of Transportation.

    The Department of Of Homeland Security.

    There are others that need to go, too. Chief among these are Education and Energy.
    And you would replace them with what? Hypothetical question...no answer necessary. Point here is if you honestly believe government is too big and needs to be changed, why would you be against changing and merging those agencies that could stand to make our economy stronger considering "job creation" is the #1 concern all across the country?

    Instead, what arguments have you read from Conservative posters thus far in this thread alone? Go back and read their commentary including your own and see what their saying. Then perhaps you'll begin to see the obsurity going on.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •