http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-for-power-to-merge-agencies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

I’m sure you all have heard about this.

I wonder what ways the Republicans are going to find to argue in support of big government, and the subsequent arguments the message board lackeys will use.

1/13/2012 10:14:49 PM

Hmm I see some weak arguments about abuse of power or checks and balance or constitution misinterpreted bullshit coming. Just guesses on the arguments. The plan seems like a good idea so chances it won't work.

[Edited on January 13, 2012 at 10:32 PM. Reason : The plan]

1/13/2012 10:31:52 PM

This is how the political process is supposed to work. He is taking the necessary positions required to win. The shitty thing is regardless of who gets the nomination, they'll ignore everything they promised and worse.

1/13/2012 10:36:00 PM

Quote :

"Pres. Obama proposes shaving 0.0081 percent off of the federal budget by merging into one agency the half-dozen agencies now charged with obstructing Americans’ freedom to trade with foreigners Why not abolish these agencies altogether? Taxpayers’ savings will be even larger. More importantly, the economic benefit of escaping these counterproductive shackles will be significant. Consumer purchasing power will rise; competition will intensify; corporations will waste fewer resources as their prospects for successfully seeking special privileges dim; and the U.S. government will set a principled example of better practicing what it preaches. Now some will protest that these agencies are vital to Uncle Sam’s mission of opening markets for American exporters. Forget the ethical and economic problems with forcing taxpayers to subsidize corporations’ quests for customers. Focus instead on the administration’s frequent and correct claims that foreign governments are forever scheming to increase their countries’ exports to America, and recognize that the inevitable result of foreigners selling more to Americans is that they will, either now or in the future, buy more from Americans. (What else can foreigners do with the dollars they earn from selling their exports to us, and with the dollars they earn tomorrow from any dollars they invest in America today?) We can rest assured, therefore, that with foreign governments artificially promoting American exports for us, we need not be taxed or otherwise harassed to achieve this goal. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux Professor of Economics George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030"

1/13/2012 11:36:26 PM

The Chinese can't invest their dollars somewhere other than America? And the receivers of those dollars can't invest them somewhere other than America? I suppose if they don't return then the value of all our dollars goes up and this is just as good as them returning as investments?

1/14/2012 7:16:43 AM

So, when I think of smaller government I think of it in two ways....1)the government actually becomes smaller but completesI the same function or 2)the power of government actually shrinks. Obama is only doing the first. While I aflgree that lean practices are critical for waste elimination, I'd also like to see the fundamental power decrease as well.

1/14/2012 8:49:35 AM

If Obama really wanted to push for smaller government, he should endorse Ron Paul.

1/14/2012 9:15:21 AM

If obama really wanted smaller government he would resign.

1/14/2012 9:53:21 AM

I am center left but this had me thinking "talk about a power grab".

1/14/2012 9:58:25 AM

Quote :

"The Chinese can't invest their dollars somewhere other than America?"

Other than Zimbabwe and a few other dollarized countries, the only workers on planet Earth regularly accepting their wages in dollars live in America.

People in other countries accept Dollars only in-so-far as they plan to exchange them with someone else that is eager to spend those dollars in America.

1/14/2012 10:05:06 AM

Wages are the only uses for any currency? Why do euro/dollar swaps exist? Is it not a safe assumption to believe dollars can leave our shores and not return for a long time given a certain type of investment environment?

1/14/2012 11:35:43 AM

Two points.

1. Dollars are a withering commodity, as they become worth less over time. As such, other than what foreigners are keeping in their sock drawer, all large foreign holdings of U.S. currency are actually deposits in U.S. institutions such as government bonds.

2. What do we care? If foreigners give us televisions which cost them both time and resources in exchange for little pictures of dead presidents which cost us nothing to produce, how could this be a bad deal for us? Outside of a recession, prices adjust to ensure full employment. As foreigners squirrel away our money is deflationary, the federal reserve can print money to offset the diversion. In effect, transferring the American labor and resources the Chinese for whatever reason refused to consume to the Federal Government in the form of lower borrowing costs.

1/14/2012 12:36:19 PM

Way to answer some other argument that wasn't made.

1/14/2012 12:47:19 PM

The position you stated is obviously correct, money can leave America for extended periods of time in tourists pockets, I cannot say otherwise. However, I can argue the position you stated either doesn't matter or otherwise isn't a bad thing.

1/14/2012 2:40:37 PM

This is political strategy, nothing more. The administration understands that there is a sizable constituency that really wants less government, so they're tapping into that. The election is coming, and 2012 is going to be a horribly shitty year for average American. At least with moves like this, Obama can point to this token effort to cut spending.

It's impossible to take seriously. The President has the power to cut military spending, but he won't do it. We need to be abolishing entire federal departments and returning those roles to the state.

[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 3:12 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2012 3:08:39 PM

^ you realize that most of the states now don't have the budget, will, talent, or knowledge to build massive new bureaucracies?

I'm not sure why it makes more sense to decommission red tap with a flamethrower, like you and lonesnark seem to be suggesting, vs. a scissors, like the OBama admin seems to be suggesting.

I guess the only thing that would make some people happy is anarchy.

1/14/2012 3:28:39 PM

"Obama pushes D.C. reform, Republicans hit back"
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/14/obama-pushes-d-c-reform-republicans-hit-back/

Quote :

"The president, echoing comments he made Friday, said he would replace the Commerce Department, rearrange lower-tier agencies and elevate the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level post. "These changes will make it easier for small business owners to get the loans and support they need to sell their products around the world," he said. "For example, instead of forcing small business owners to navigate the six departments and agencies in the federal government that focus on business and trade, we'll have one department." With the November elections around the corner, Republicans are skeptical of the proposal. "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," a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said on Friday."

"This is political strategy, nothing more."

"It's impossible to take seriously."

^^Boehner would agree.

[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM. Reason : + 1 ^]

1/14/2012 3:29:32 PM

^^ flame thrower? No, all we ask is that he stop building new bureaucracy. Even if he never fired another government worker, he'd still be our hero if he just stoped hiring new ones!

Quote :

"Not mentioned: Over the next 10 years, Obama has also proposed about $46 trillion in federal spending. Just last year, under Obama’s watch, the government we have finalized $232 billion worth of new regulations and just $1.1 billion in regulatory savings. Jobs at federal regulatory agencies, meanwhile, grew by 13 percent. And this was in the year that President Obama started by called for a regulatory review designed to “root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”"

1/14/2012 5:05:25 PM

^where are you quoting that from?

most of the things I've seen indicate that the federal workforce is almost the same as it was in the 70s and **gasp** even lower than it was during the Reagan years



As a percentage of population we are at 50 year lows



[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM. Reason : oh geez red x]

[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2012 5:26:52 PM

"Flamethrower" doesn't capture what I want to happen to the government. "Wrecking ball" is a more appropriate analogy.

We don't need to trim a little fat from the state. We need a complete reversal of policy and a serious discussion about the role of the federal government.

Quote :

"you realize that most of the states now don't have the budget, will, talent, or knowledge to build massive new bureaucracies?"

Neither does the federal government.

Quote :

"I guess the only thing that would make some people happy is anarchy."

Anarchy is a lofty goal. I'd be happy with a government that doesn't kill/incarcerate innocent people on a daily basis and fuck up the economy.

[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 7:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2012 7:04:21 PM

replace the commerce dept, eh? so this is union busting for big-business interests?

[Edited on January 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2012 9:55:29 PM

I really don't call "shuffling chairs" a push for "smaller government."

1/15/2012 2:10:40 PM

I don't think sensible people would call firing 2000 people "shuffling chairs."

1/15/2012 2:34:11 PM

2000 people out of a bureaucracy of almost 3 million, people who will soon just be replaced with new workers? That's shuffling chairs, dude

1/15/2012 3:49:39 PM

Quote :

"I don't think sensible people would call firing 2000 people "shuffling chairs.""

Liberal thinking on display here folks. This is the type of thought process that will drive this country off the cliff. This type of thinking must be eradicated.

1/15/2012 3:53:00 PM

Quote :

"2000 people out of a bureaucracy of almost 3 million, people who will soon just be replaced with new workers? That's shuffling chairs, dude "

So what you're saying is that you're declaring this a failure because maybe, at some point, those people will be hired back?

LOL, cognitive dissonance at its finest.

1/15/2012 3:56:54 PM

no, it's not necessarily a "failure." It's just not an example of "making gov't smaller." He's moving deck chairs on the titanic and you are declaring that he is pumping water out of the boat. for god's sake, he just cut the federal workforce by less than .1%, and you think that's "smaller gov't"?

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2012 4:00:38 PM

Do you understand how politics works?

Do you think congress would approve any plan that fires 20,000 people all at once? or 200,000?

You realize that the money the gov. spends doesn't just go into a furnace, it's actually employing people, funding research, testing food, etc.?

1/15/2012 4:05:49 PM

do you not realize that "smaller gov't" means more than just the actual number of people employed by the gov't?

1/15/2012 4:10:05 PM

The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Obama has already taken more steps than our previous Republican Conservative president.

1/15/2012 4:11:19 PM

Did anyone see the graphs I posted?

there is no "runaway government bureaucracy" (atleast in terms of the number of workers)

More important than the number of workers is that now businesses will just have to contact one department instead of having to research which department pertains to their issue. If its done correctly it will streamline the contact between government and business allowing new companies to enter the market more easily, cheaper operating costs blah blah blah

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2012 4:13:19 PM

^
What about it? We were at a low 4 years ago, but it's been steadily increasing since Obama's election.

Bill Clinton deserves the credit here.

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2012 4:19:02 PM

and even despite that its still relatively low compared to the past 50 years.

Further I think it shows that the number of workers employed by the government (within reason obviously) has no effect on how private business performs. When we look at the allegedly small government administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr, when private business was supposedly humming along, we see that the number of government workers was actually GROWING

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM. Reason : the more I find out about reagan the more you realize how misrepresented he is by conservativestoday]

1/15/2012 4:21:45 PM

For fucks sake, arguing about the difference between .7% and 1% is wasted energy.

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2012 4:23:41 PM

I'm curious about what the graph looks like after 2010.

1/15/2012 4:24:54 PM

^^I agree but even when we see slight growth its suddenly "ZOMG RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!"

^me too, I'll go looking, but those were just two of the first graphs that I found

1/15/2012 4:28:49 PM

Quote :

"The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step."

get back to me when he actually takes a step. like, you know, reducing the scope of gov't, not simply shuffling chairs at the Dept of Commerce. and he's REALLY pushing for a "smaller gov't" by that wonderful idea of nationalizing 1/6th of our economy via Obamacare. yep. that's definitely the "first step" to a smaller gov't, yep yep!



I also like how Ted is quoting direct federal employees and completely ignoring the fact that we are hiring more and more contractors to do the work of the bureaucracy. not that it even had any point to begin with

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:32 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2012 4:29:00 PM

Quote :

"I agree but even when we see slight growth its suddenly "ZOMG RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!""

No, thats an argument you made up. Lonesnark made a mention about gov works but his quote was about government spending in general.

You chose to focus on the works comment as if it undermined everything he posted. It didn't.

1/15/2012 4:30:24 PM

well he said

Quote :

" Even if he never fired another government worker, he'd still be our hero if he just stoped hiring new ones! "

which I took to mean that he was worried about all those onerous government workers added to the payroll. So thats why I focused on government workers.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_1206349.html

there is a graph in that link that include 2011

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:38 PM. Reason : holy shit huge graph]



[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ^new graph]

1/15/2012 4:37:27 PM

^ but our gov. should have the same amount of employees now as when our population is 1 billion.

1/15/2012 4:46:28 PM

and, AGAIN, that doesn't take into account jobs that were simply shifted to federal contractors. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, but to act like the size our gov't workforce has fallen so drastically is absurd. It's a shell game

1/15/2012 4:49:33 PM

what you're saying doesn't make sense burro.

You don't want the gov. doing anything, and now you are upset when private companies do those things?

Do you just want nothing done? That is some extreme conservatism...

1/15/2012 4:53:37 PM

Quote :

"^ but our gov. should have the same amount of employees now as when our population is 1 billion."

Those graphs are by % of population.

1/15/2012 4:56:41 PM

(that was sarcasm)

1/15/2012 4:57:13 PM

Quote :

"what you're saying doesn't make sense burro. You don't want the gov. doing anything, and now you are upset when private companies do those things? Do you just want nothing done? That is some extreme conservatism..."

congratulations on arguing against something I never said! you, meanwhile, are the genius who thinks that shuffling chairs around in the federal gov't while not reducing it's scope one bit is equal to "making gov't smaller"

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2012 5:03:12 PM

I can accept that it isn't really making government that much smaller, you are right when you say its a relatively small drop in spending and the number of workers. But can you meet in the middle and admit that it is making the government less bureaucratic? That is now instead of a business having to figure out who they should be contacting about an issue all they have to do is contact one department (saving them time and headaches etc)

1/15/2012 5:18:37 PM

it might streamline some things, but the bureaucracy is the same. they still have to go to the gov't for the same shit they did before. the only thing that changed is the number in the rolodex

[Edited on January 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2012 5:25:08 PM

no, the point is instead of having 5 DIFFERENT numbers you need to contact in the rolodex you would only have one. Thats bound to make life easier.

1/15/2012 5:49:45 PM

maybe. until you get bounced around to give different numbers in the same department as opposed to five different departments. shuffling chairs

1/15/2012 5:52:19 PM

Obama for small govt. That's a start!

Set em up for more

[Edited on January 16, 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ,]

1/16/2012 12:35:17 PM