Obama says US needs a new government

[Guest]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-13...government.html

[phkrause]

Interesting for sure

[Bravus]

Hang on! Conservatives are always on about smaller government. This is a move toward that, but because it comes from Obama it's a bad thing?

How about looking at the idea on its merits, instead of who proposed it?

[phkrause]

Hang on! Conservatives are always on about smaller government. This is a move toward that, but because it comes from Obama it's a bad thing?

How about looking at the idea on its merits, instead of who proposed it?

exactly

[phkrause]

RICHARD AND PKRAUSE

any time OBAMA wants to change something it is not good for us

dgrimm60

I definitely disagree with that dgrimm.

[Guest]

Hang on! Conservatives are always on about smaller government. This is a move toward that,

If you actually believe that's what it is, then you would fit right in with these brainwashed liberals up here who believe whatever they hear in the mainstream media. That's not what it is at all. But for the sake of the argument lets say that it would actually make some small part of the gov't smaller.

It would be too little too late, to do any good, for one thing. Also it would go against everything this man believes in and stands for. Even if he were desperate enough to temporarily reverse his ideology and direction, that's all it would be, is temporary. In other words it's nothing but a trick. A lie even. What he's proposing, doesn't even need doing, and he knows that. It's a ploy to try to come off looking like he's now for smaller gov't. (what an amazing transformation that would be)

[paragraph removed by moderator] Even the democrats don't believe it!

from the article:

“Taking USTR, one of the most efficient agencies that is a model of how government can and should work, and making it just another corner of a new bureaucratic behemoth would hurt American exports and hinder American job creation,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Democrat, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, a Republican, said in a joint statement.

Schwab also was critical of moving the USTR. The trade representative’s office is “one of the few things that actually works,” she said.

[sentence removed by moderator]

Moderator note: we need to play nice. Focus on the topic and not on other members.

[bonnie]

It isn't about smaller government,it is about placing more power in the hands of this man

[Guest]

It isn't about smaller government,it is about placing more power in the hands of this man

That's exactly what it is..

[Tom Wetmore]

...and if you actually believe what you posted, you would fit right in with those brainwashed conservatives who believe everything that comes out of the Fox propaganda machine.

I agree that much of the reaction is fueled not by the substance of it, but the simple fact that it came out of Obama's mouth. He could promote every plank of the Republican platform verbatim and it would be criticized and rejected by most conservatives simply because he said it.

However, I don't think that is the primary reason for the negative reaction from either end of the political spectrum. The populist political rhetoric is smaller government and getting the government off our backs and out of our business. But all the rhetoric is just vote-getting bull. Few of these politicians are seriously willing to reduce government. And even if they are, none of them will agree on what they are willing to cut, since they are more inclined toward turf protection and whatever furthers the special interests that financed their election. And one thing above all else they seek to preserve is whatever gets them reelected.

[Dr. Shane]

If you can't see that just on it's face, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just don't understand US politics. Maybe you should just re-read the article, only slower this time.

This is getting a bit too personal in disagreeing with other members here. Try to focus on the topic more than on other members.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: RLH

If you can't see that just on it's face, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you just don't understand US politics. Maybe you should just re-read the article, only slower this time.

This is getting a bit too personal in disagreeing with other members here. Try to focus on the topic more than on other members.

[Bravus]

The allegation about not understanding the US system seems to be getting a run almost every time I post. I think it's a cheap shot, and that I understand the American system at least as well as most here, and better than a majority of Americans in general. The fact that I have different views about it doesn't mean that I don't understand it. How about a focus on the content of the posts, not the zip code of the poster?

[phkrause]

The allegation about not understanding the US system seems to be getting a run almost every time I post. I think it's a cheap shot, and that I understand the American system at least as well as most here, and better than a majority of Americans in general. The fact that I have different views about it doesn't mean that I don't understand it. How about a focus on the content of the posts, not the zip code of the poster?

[bonnie]

Obama may want to try eliminating the hundreds of new regulations that have added millions in cost. Then perhaps he could have just a bit of credibility

[bonnie]

Obama’s Seven New Regulations Would Cost U.S. Economy Billions

Written by Brian Koenig

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, conducted its own study on regulations in the United States and identified 339 "economically significant" rules (i.e., those costing at least $100 million) during the last two years under Bush, compared to 408 such rules in the first two years under Obama. Hundreds of more rules will be streaming through the pipeline, as a flood of new regulatory burdens stem from the EPA, ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and the Department of Labor. A rule to regulate ozone levels is projected to cost nearly $1 trillion, which according to Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.), is the "single most expensive environmental regulation in history."

"The combined cost of these seven new regulatory actions alone could be more than $100 billion, according to the information released by the White House today, [and t]hese costs will be felt by the American people in the form of fewer jobs and slower economic growth," Boehner said in response to the President’s proposal. "At a time like this, with our economy struggling to create jobs, it’s misguided for the federal government to be imposing so many new rules with such enormous costs, even when some of those rules may be well-intentioned."

On Monday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) unveiled a GOP plan to target 10 regulations in an effort to ease regulatory burdens on small businesses. The four EPA regulations proposed by Obama already had a home on the Republicans’ target list. Other items include a cement regulation, a rollback of various healthcare regulations, and two labor regulations from the National Labor Relations Board.

[olger]

I would be in favor of a new government

"And the government shall be on His shoulder."

[Bravus]

(and I can't help mentally singing it to the tune from The Messiah)