Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

[Objective Voice]

Interesting...

President Obama, looking to make the federal government "leaner, smarter and more consumer-friendly," asked Congress Friday for the authority to merge six trade and commerce agencies as part of a broader effort to rebuild the government for a "21st century economy."Speaking at the White House before a crowd of small-business owners, Obama pledged to streamline and reform the executive branch, and asked Congress to reinstate an authority — last used by former President Reagan — to put his proposal in action.

“From the moment I got here, I saw up close what many of you know to be true: the government we have is not the government we need,” Obama said.

“We live in a 21st century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed — as has the world — but our government, our agencies have not. The needs of our citizens have fundamentally changed but their government has not. Instead, it has often grown more complex."

Obama is asking lawmakers to grant him a reorganizational power that would let him propose mergers that would save the government money. The House and Senate would then decide whether to approve his ideas in an up-or-down vote in 90 days.

The president's proposal is an attempt to put Republicans on the defensive in an election year by forcing them to choose whether to support something they have long stood for — reducing the size of government and cutting spending. The plan could help Obama counter charges from the GOP that he is a big-government liberal who has tried to expand the bureaucracy during his term in office.

Now, just in case folks start believing this is just a political stunt by the President, watch this video from President Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address.

You can't say he was just blowing smoke. He's doing exactly what he said he would do. Now, let's see if these "anti-big government" Republicans will step up to the plate or come up with some clever argument along the lines of "he's trying to get rid of the wrong government agencies! He should be trying to disband the EPA, Dept of Education, Commerce Dept," or something like that. Already, Speaker Boehner's spokesman had this to say:

A spokesman for Speaker John Boehener (R-Ohio) welcomed Obama's proposal but questioned his commitment to reducing the size of government.

“Given the President’s record of growing government, we’re interested to learn whether this proposal represents actual relief for American businesses or just the appearance of it," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement. "American small businesses are more concerned about this administration’s policies than from which building in Washington they originate. We hope the President isn't simply proposing new packaging for the same burdensome approach.

"However, eliminating duplicative programs and making the federal government more simple, streamlined, and business-friendly is always an idea worth exploring," he continued. "We look forward to hearing more about his proposal."

Regardless, in case some of you forget just how vehemently your side dinged the President over the size and complexity of government, remember this government/health care organization chart?

 

[a777pilot]

Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans

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.

 

[Objective Voice]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our first pundit...:roll:

 

[a777pilot]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our first pundit...:roll:

Thank you.





For clarification, especially for those that were "educated" by those belonging to the NEA....

[h=2]pun·dit[/h]   /ˈpʌn

dɪt/
noun 1. a learned person, expert, or authority.

 

[StillBallin75]

just fyi, OV, this is a dupe thread.

 

[Objective Voice]

Thank you.





For clarification, especially for those that were "educated" by those belonging to the NEA....

[h=2]pun·dit[/h]   /ˈpʌn

dɪt/
noun 1. a learned person, expert, or authority.

Surely, you heard the sarcasm and scorn in my use of the word "pundit".

Anyway, let's see how Republicans twist this restructuring request.

 

[Objective Voice]

just fyi, OV, this is a dupe thread.

Thank you! Much appreciate the compliment.

 

[apdst]

Obama is going to take several agencies and make one great big agency? So, how does that make him a small government guy?

 

[upsideguy]

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.

Makes far more sense for a Democrat to champion such a cause than a Republican as the Dems have the record of success in this area. Afterall, federal employment consistently falls under the administrations of Democrats and consistently grows when Republicans are at the helm.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Bet you did not know that. Glad to help debunk another myth; that Republicans are about smaller government. The fact is, Republicans are all about increased spending, increased debt (what you get when you start wars, have unfunded healthcare initiatives and pay for them with tax cuts) and increased size of federal government

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

"Obama tries to seize the mantle of small government from Republicans...but fails because they haven't had it for decades. Insider sources tell us that federal agents are currently sifting through decades of bull**** in the sewers of DC, in search of the long lost mantle."

 

[Mycroft]

Interesting...



Now, just in case folks start believing this is just a political stunt by the President, watch this video from President Obama's 2011 State of the Union Address.

You can't say he was just blowing smoke. He's doing exactly what he said he would do. Now, let's see if these "anti-big government" Republicans will step up to the plate or come up with some clever argument along the lines of "he's trying to get rid of the wrong government agencies! He should be trying to disband the EPA, Dept of Education, Commerce Dept," or something like that. Already, Speaker Boehner's spokesman had this to say:



Regardless, in case some of you forget just how vehemently your side dinged the President over the size and complexity of government, remember this government/health care organization chart?

If Obama were serious about reducing the size of government, he would gain more credibility if he proposed eliminating the whole Obamacare structure. If he did that, then even I might believe him.

 

[1Perry]

If he was serious he wouldn't be demanding a trillion more in debt. He's had plenty of time to demand that the actions of his debt commission be acted upon. He's ignored them.

Sorry, he can't get the upper hand in anything as he is not a serious person.

 

[AdamT]

If he was serious he wouldn't be demanding a trillion more in debt. He's had plenty of time to demand that the actions of his debt commission be acted upon. He's ignored them.

Sorry, he can't get the upper hand in anything as he is not a serious person.

The debt commission did not produce consensus recommendations. Nonetheless, many of their ideas did make it into discussions during the debt ceiling "negotiations". Republicans would never accept their revenue enhancement recommendations.

 

[a777pilot]

Surely, you heard the sarcasm and scorn in my use of the word "pundit".

Anyway, let's see how Republicans twist this restructuring request.

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.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

No, you have it wrong.

Real liberals want the government to take care of EVERYTHING in their lives.

 

[a777pilot]

No, you have it wrong.

Real liberals want the government to take care of EVERYTHING in their lives.

You could be right but that makes no sense at all.

Just what then is a liberal? Has the definition changed in the past 40 years?

 

[jimbo]

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. He has created 50 new czar positions since coming to office. About half redundant. Of the remainder, many are of questionable usefulness. Do we really need a czar of Sudan? Shouldn't State be handling foreign affairs? Most of these were appointed without the benefit of hearings. Is it not reasonable to assume that they could be dismantled without Congress?

The UHC alone establishes around 160 new agencies.

This is just political smoke and mirrors.

 

[Mycroft]

You could be right but that makes no sense at all.

Just what then is a liberal? Has the definition changed in the past 40 years?

I'm sure there are many definitions of a liberal...and I'm sure it has changed a number of times over the past 40 years. I like this one:

2. liberal
Liberal is a person with liberal views. However, an EXTREME liberal is the WORST type of person. To start with they brainwash people. Then they convince you that their pre made views they hand to you are open minded. They tell you to hate Republicans and everyone who thinks differently than you. They are the first to throw around the word racist. Most extreme liberal abuse minorities. They look for a group typically blacks or hispanics, convince them they are nothing and need the liberals to survive, then exploit them for political power. Extreme liberals are usually igorant but claim everyone else is. They pretend to be looking out for the people but are only looking out for themselves. Some day people will realize this is the truth.

Now listen, I am only talking about EXTREME liberals. Liberals aren't great either but extreme are horrible Extreme republicans are just as bad. Extreme anything is bad. The moral of the story folks, stay middle of the road, don't completely trust any political group because hey, once you get far enough up in the line there is no difference in the groups they are all selfish and corrupt. Keep an open mind. Think for yourself. Don't believe everything you are told. Have fun. And pay attention to the details here before you flip on me.
Urban Dictionary: liberal

 

[haymarket]

that is just nonsensical and silly. You quote something which is vague and non-specific and provides no verifiable evidence of its charges and allegations.

 

[haymarket]

No, you have it wrong.

Real liberals want the government to take care of EVERYTHING in their lives.

Where do you get these silly pronouncements? It makes no sense at all and bears no relationship to reality.

 

[AdamT]

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.

 

[Objective Voice]

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".

 

[Mycroft]

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?

 

[AdamT]

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. :roll:

 

[haymarket]

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.