A $3B solution for a $1200B problem.

[heymikey80]

Obama unveils plan to streamline government - CNN.com

And that's $3B over 10 years, in comparison with $1200B per year ... that would make it at least a $12000B problem.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Obama unveils plan to streamline government - CNN.com

And that's $3B over 10 years, in comparison with $1200B per year ... that would make it at least a $12000B problem.

Fantastic! Just the change we'd all been hoping for. Words can't begin to describe the wisdom of this great man of peace. He not only brought about world peace ... he's now solved the onerous national debt problem in one swell foop.

 

[Umaro]

No surprise here the sides are bickering. You'd think that removing redundancy and red tape would be something everyone would get behind. Even if it only saves $3 billion over 10 years, it would still mean far less hoops that people and businesses have to jump through. I can't see a possible reason not to do this, and I feel like it's being opposed just because Obama is doing it.

 

[lordbt]

No surprise here the sides are bickering. You'd think that removing redundancy and red tape would be something everyone would get behind. Even if it only saves $3 billion over 10 years, it would still mean far less hoops that people and businesses have to jump through. I can't see a possible reason not to do this, and I feel like it's being opposed just because Obama is doing it.

I dont think anyone is opposing it, umaro. People are just pointing out the insignificance of the savings. It is just more small ball by Obama.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I dont think anyone is opposing it, umaro. People are just pointing out the insignificance of the savings. It is just more small ball by Obama.

Oh ... they will, lordbt. Obama is neither benign nor benevolent.

Yoda - YouTube

.

 

[heymikey80]

what a pittance. And no follow-up, either. Looks like this was a nonstarter for Obama.

 

[heymikey80]

maybe we should look at it like payment on the clock.

In ten years we'll have paid back from 12m to 4 PM for one day of government spending with this solution.

I wonder what's the cost of doing all this "streamlining"?

I remember the last time we did "streamlining" of government, it ended up costing us more to streamline than to leave it the way it was.

 

[MachZer0]

maybe we should look at it like payment on the clock.

In ten years we'll have paid back from 12m to 4 PM for one day of government spending with this solution.

I wonder what's the cost of doing all this "streamlining"?

I remember the last time we did "streamlining" of government, it ended up costing us more to streamline than to leave it the way it was.

I wonder what the real motivation is

 

[heymikey80]

The only thing I could figure was that he was hoping to be identified as a cost-cutter.

"Streamlining" was to my memory last implemented under Jimmy Carter. It didn't result in any drop in the budget deficits during Carter's tenure.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I wonder what the real motivation is

Additional control of business ... when he re-writes all regulations for:

Commerce Department
Small Business Administration
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Export-Import Bank
Overseas Private Investment Corp.
Trade and Development Agency.
​

Be very afraid ...

I'm Not Afraid. - YouTube

 

[Touma]

I love that if Obama does anything that can be seen as good by those to the right, they question his motivation, instead of honoring him as doing something right by their standards.

ODS is getting out of control.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I love that if Obama does anything that can be seen as good by those to the right, they question his motivation, instead of honoring him as doing something right by their standards.

ODS is getting out of control.

Truth is just what it is, Touma.

Obama has a history of implementing bad unconstitutional big-government policies. Can you point to any specific reason that might change?

.

 

[blueapplepaste]

I dont think anyone is opposing it, umaro. People are just pointing out the insignificance of the savings. It is just more small ball by Obama.

I don't disagree. However, I've seen so many GOP people scream and shout how we need to cut NPR, for example, and when told its 0.000001% of the budget (or whatever it is), they dismiss it and say "we gotta start somewhere". Yet now you have the same people saying this won't make a difference. It's just purely partisan bickering going on. If cutting the budget, even by a dime, is good, according to the GOP, then so is this plan by their own standards.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not totally familiar with the proposal but I think I heard that there is some sort of additional power that the President is seeking. I just wonder, and I admit that I am somewhat suspicious, as to why there is a need to increase the Presidential power in order to cut costs?

 

[Schroeder]

I'm not totally familiar with the proposal but I think I heard that there is some sort of additional power that the President is seeking. I just wonder, and I admit that I am somewhat suspicious, as to why there is a need to increase the Presidential power in order to cut costs?

thats the same tactic as always with the democrates. They have nothing becasue what they want cannot decrease any government spending. So they throw this out with one little thing in it that they know the republicans will NEVER go for just to paint them as bipartisan evil selfish bla bla bla. SO there littloe line is obama saying give me just a tiny little bit more power and i can help. yea right. not going to happen the media will ignore the little added power and harp on the republicans being the party of no.

 

[Schroeder]

I don't disagree. However, I've seen so many GOP people scream and shout how we need to cut NPR, for example, and when told its 0.000001% of the budget (or whatever it is), they dismiss it and say "we gotta start somewhere". Yet now you have the same people saying this won't make a difference. It's just purely partisan bickering going on. If cutting the budget, even by a dime, is good, according to the GOP, then so is this plan by their own standards.

gotta love politics. Kind of like when democrats say the republicans wont create jobs. yet they sent 11 jobs bills to the senate which were ignored by harry reid. 11 thats alot of job bills. And what has the democrats done zip. the only way they want to create jobs is through growing the government, or at the least,at the expense of only making the government stronger or bigger.

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not totally familiar with the proposal but I think I heard that there is some sort of additional power that the President is seeking. I just wonder, and I admit that I am somewhat suspicious, as to why there is a need to increase the Presidential power in order to cut costs?

I would conclude that increased power is required by anyone who wants to assert their power over other branches of government. The non-recess recess appointments come to mind.

This appears to be political bullying to me. And for the pittance of less than .1% of the budget, I wouldn't budge.

 

[heymikey80]

Additional control of business ... when he re-writes all regulations for:

Commerce Department
Small Business Administration
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Export-Import Bank
Overseas Private Investment Corp.
Trade and Development Agency.
​

Be very afraid ...

That's an horrific thought.

 

[heymikey80]

A related question.

Given the vast amount of duplication and the relative lack of need for government regulators when there's no work to regulate, why keep the government so all-fire huge?

 

[heymikey80]

What does this action mean for Obama's policies?

Will the Executive branch ever conserve regulatory costs?

Why does the combination of so many regulative bodies result in so little savings?

Does the government ever consistently reduce its workforce through pay for performance, e.g.?