• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama to shrink government?

cybrsage

cybrsage

Lifer
President Barack Obama will ask Congress on Friday for greater power to shrink the federal government, and his first idea is merging six sprawling trade and commerce agencies whose overlapping programs can be baffling to businesses, a senior administration official told The Associated Press.
Obama will call on Congress to give him a type of reorganizational power last held by a president when Ronald Reagan was in office. The Obama version would be a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers. The deal would entitle him to an up-or-down vote from Congress in 90 days.


It would be up to lawmakers, therefore, to first grant Obama this fast-track authority and then decide whether to approve any of his specific ideas.
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...on-authority-to-merge-agencies/#ixzz1jLRxIq1i


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. But thankfully, due to him knowing how vulnerable he is in the upcoming election, he will do what the people want and reduce the size of government.
 
3 billion over 10 years? It'll probably cost more consolidating than they'll ever save.
 
Who has the authority now? Or is there currently no way for them to be reorganized? Sounds like a decent idea regardless at least.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
Who has the authority now? Or is there currently no way for them to be reorganized? Sounds like a decent idea regardless at least.
Click to expand...
its lukewarm at best. its a lateral move emnt to make it look like hes shrinking. ten bucks says the long and the short of it is that instead of six buildings its now just one with with a fancy new sign to define them all under (figuratively or literally)
 
IonusX said:
its lukewarm at best. its a lateral move emnt to make it look like hes shrinking. ten bucks says the long and the short of it is that instead of six buildings its now just one with with a fancy new sign to define them all under (figuratively or literally)
Click to expand...

Yea, I started out typing good and replaced it with decent : p It sounds like a reasonable power to have. There's potential for it to be good, but I'm not expecting much out of it either.
 
PokerGuy said:
I'm all for shrinking the government, but granting the dear leader more power is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I am definitely not in favor of increasing the executives power regardless of who (or which party) is holding the office.

However, if I read the article right wouldn't Congress have to vote upon the changes, simply requiring them to give it an up or down vote within 90 days
 
Darwin333 said:
I am definitely not in favor of increasing the executives power regardless of who (or which party) is holding the office.

However, if I read the article right wouldn't Congress have to vote upon the changes, simply requiring them to give it an up or down vote within 90 days
Click to expand...

What it does is it forces a vote, so neither party can filibuster it.
 
cybrsage said:
What it does is it forces a vote, so neither party can filibuster it.
Click to expand...

The ability to filibustering should be removed from the system anyway, or at the least require them to remain in the building while it's happening. It's created a joke of a process about as bad as medieval poland. Either vote on something or don't; this retarded ability to gridlock government perpetually is dumb.
 
AyashiKaibutsu said:
The ability to filibustering should be removed from the system anyway, or at the least require them to remain in the building while it's happening. It's created a joke of a process about as bad as medieval poland. Either vote on something or don't; this retarded ability to gridlock government perpetually is dumb.
Click to expand...

I agree that filibustering should be restored to how it was in the old days. I recommend Mr. Smith Goes To Washington as a great movie which shows how it should be done.

Simply saying you are going to filibuster is not enough, imo. You must actually DO it.
 
Acrually, I think that Romney would expand the size of the govt more than Obama ever could which is pretty damn scary. Look at Reagan and Carter and Bush and Clinton.
 
Well this sounds like exactly what the Republicans want, shrinking government. It also sounds like a good idea and something that isn't very powerful. Which means that the Republicans will almost guarantee vote against it. We all know they don't actually want to do anything that's good for the nation, they've stated as much. Their only goal is to keep Obama from getting re-elected no matter how much harm it does to the nation.
 
thraashman said:
Well this sounds like exactly what the Republicans want, shrinking government. It also sounds like a good idea and something that isn't very powerful. Which means that the Republicans will almost guarantee vote against it. We all know they don't actually want to do anything that's good for the nation, they've stated as much. Their only goal is to keep Obama from getting re-elected no matter how much harm it does to the nation.
Click to expand...

As a Republican, I'm all for shrinking government, as long as that means reduced headcount.
 
I wouldn't characterize it as an Administrative power since Congress would have to approve it. The President only initiates the process.

As proposed, it has potential at least. The no BS clause of a simple yea or nay vote and requiring Congress to act on it is refreshing.
 
It sounds like a good idea to me. I don't see it increasing executive power by that much, since Congress would have to approve any changes. In the present environment, it would mean that Obama would have to get approval from the House GOP. So he isn't likely to be pursuing any kind of dem agenda with it. It's probably a politically motivated move on his part, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
 
3 billion over 10 years (300 mil a year) out of a 3.8 Trillion a year budget? Isn't this kind of like gorging yourself at the cheesecake factory and then declaring that you are watching what you eat because you had a diet coke with the meal?
 
Griffinhart said:
3 billion over 10 years (300 mil a year) out of a 3.8 Trillion a year budget? Isn't this kind of like gorging yourself at the cheesecake factory and then declaring that you are watching what you eat because you had a diet coke with the meal?
Click to expand...

Didn't see your hero Bush do anything to shrink Government over 8 years.

He expanded it exponentially in the name on the war on terrer.
 
Griffinhart said:
3 billion over 10 years (300 mil a year) out of a 3.8 Trillion a year budget? Isn't this kind of like gorging yourself at the cheesecake factory and then declaring that you are watching what you eat because you had a diet coke with the meal?
Click to expand...

A few billion here, a few billion there, next thing you know you are talking about real money.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Didn't see your hero Bush do anything to shrink Government over 8 years.

He expanded it exponentially in the name on the war on terrer.
Click to expand...

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.
 
woolfe9999 said:
It sounds like a good idea to me. I don't see it increasing executive power by that much, since Congress would have to approve any changes. In the present environment, it would mean that Obama would have to get approval from the House GOP. So he isn't likely to be pursuing any kind of dem agenda with it. It's probably a politically motivated move on his part, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...
God help us all if the GOP gets the WH/HOR combo back in the future.
 
I won't say "won't happen" but will go as far as "very unlikely to happen". Congressional committee chairs like their power. Combining departments means combining oversight committees means fewer chairs in Congress.
 
cybrsage said:
A few billion here, a few billion there, next thing you know you are talking about real money.
Click to expand...

I agree, but let's not start praising anyone just yet. We're not even at a point where it stops the growth of spending with this. Instead of screaming towards a cliff at 100 miles an hour, we are screaming towards the same cliff at 99.999 miles an hour. It won't be time to praise anyone until the cliff is safely in our rear view mirror.
 
Griffinhart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying any differently, but you have to start somewhere. Everyone wants government to cut waste. Maybe this is a piece of that waste.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top