Obama to shrink government?

[cybrsage]

If we do not praise people for starting to do the right thing, why should they bother to even start?

 

[Darwin333]

If we do not praise people for starting to do the right thing, why should they bother to even start?

I agree, I definitely praise him (assuming his intentions are true.... he is a politician) for this but at the same time this is more of a diversion (imo) than anything.

If we want to get the deficit under control we have 4 budget items that must be cut in order to even have a chance at balancing our budget along with a combination of a significant increase in revenue. Other than a few insignificant items that pander to each sides base, none of that is being seriously discussed right now.

 

[Griffinhart]

But are they starting to do the right thing, or is this merely a token gesture? I say encourage the action, but reserve praise for then it's actually due. Do you reward the child because they say they are going to do their homework, or do you do it after?

 

[Ausm]

Who has the authority now? Or is there currently no way for them to be reorganized? Sounds like a decent idea regardless at least.

It does but it will never get through Congress.

 

[woolfe9999]

Please point to anywhere I said Bush did a good job. I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. The anual savings this represents is a fraction of the increase in spending in 2011 over 2010. It's a start, but It doesn't represent any reduction in government spending. It is barely a token gesture. I would say the same thing if a republican were in office and did this.

A fair point, but then, in instances where people defend this or that spending because it is "only" $500 million a year or some such thing, usually there are one or more comments that are the mirror opposite: all money is important, no matter the amount. So this line of reasoning cuts both ways.

In any event, the point of this idea isn't actually the money savings. That is just a side benefit. Supposedly, the point is to simplify the bureaucracy associated with multiple government departments that regulate business, making things easier and less confusing for businesses.

 

[Pneumothorax]

A fair point, but then, in instances where people defend this or that spending because it is "only" $500 million a year or some such thing, usually there are one or more comments that are the mirror opposite: all money is important, no matter the amount. So this line of reasoning cuts both ways.

In any event, the point of this idea isn't actually the money savings. That is just a side benefit. Supposedly, the point is to simplify the bureaucracy associated with multiple government departments that regulate business, making things easier and less confusing for businesses.

Bingo, it's election year politics. He had 3+ years and 5 Trillion more in deficit before he decided to try to enact this start in government reduction, yet he sat on his kingly ass and focused on other things instead.

 

[MovingTarget]

Bingo, it's election year politics. He had 3+ years and 5 Trillion more in deficit before he decided to try to enact this start in government reduction, yet he sat on his kingly ass and focused on other things instead.

So? If it is a good idea, what does it matter that it is proposed during an election year? It should be approved.

 

[Ausm]

So? If it is a good idea, what does it matter that it is proposed during an election year? It should be approved.

The Grand Obstruction Party would Filibuster Obama's idea even if it was to lower everyone's taxes down to 0%.

 

[dank69]

Bingo, it's election year politics. He had 3+ years and 5 Trillion more in deficit before he decided to try to enact this start in government reduction, yet he sat on his kingly ass and focused on other things instead.

You know, he told you what the point was right in his post, but you ignored it and substituted your own.

 

[woolfe9999]

Bingo, it's election year politics. He had 3+ years and 5 Trillion more in deficit before he decided to try to enact this start in government reduction, yet he sat on his kingly ass and focused on other things instead.

Since he has been pushing for deficit reduction since early last year, be it for political reasons or no, I tend to disagree with this. We ended up with $2.2 trillion over 10 years in that process. Whether some of that gets scaled back next year isn't the point. The point is that what you're saying isn't accurate.

Deficit reduction could not have been a priority when he initially took office anyway, given the state of the economy. That said, yes I'm sure the timing of this particular action is related to this being an election year. Doesn't matter though. If a politician is doing the right thing for the wrong reason, that's about as good as we're going to get.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I applaud the idea, I also know he has had a few years to reduce the size of government and instead has increased its size.

That's not really true at all-

http://www.businessinsider.com/size-of-the-federal-workforce-under-obama-2011-7

Yeh, I know, the Repub ideal is to force layoffs in the federal workforce to reduce unemployment... not that they can explain why they think that's true, but they apparently believe it...

They believe a lot of things that aren't true...