Thread: Obama Would Merge, Shrink Agencies

here it come

bullshit

and Mitt is white Obama

thank you

There's only 1 GOP (or future independent) candidate that can beat him...

Ron Paul

He's kissing the GOP vote.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

He's kissing the GOP vote.

a decent portion of the sheep have bought into the delusion of "limited government"

Originally Posted by min0 lee

He's kissing the GOP vote.

Republicans: Government is too big, there are too many agencies, we need to cut, cut, CUT. Obama: Here's a starter list of six agencies I want to eliminate. Republicans: OH MY GOD WHY DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT

.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Republicans: Government is too big, there are too many agencies, we need to cut, cut, CUT. Obama: Here's a starter list of six agencies I want to eliminate. Republicans: OH MY GOD WHY DO YOU WANT TO DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT

this is a US thing. you don't hear this kind of rhetoric from the citizens of any other country. it's because the US got all the radicals that left the EU many century's ago, it's in their DNA.

republicans have been crying about "high taxes" since Reagan started that BS in the 80's, taxes weren't high then and they are at a 60 year low now, the shit is crazy.

Originally Posted by LAM

this is a US thing. you don't hear this kind of rhetoric from the citizens of any other country.

That's because they're dumbshits. Limited government is what made us great in the first place and it's what will keep us great.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

That's because they're dumbshits. Limited government is what made us great in the first place and it's what will keep us great.

More importantly, it's the more moral system. LAM ironically used the word 'sheep' but the reality is limited government promotes individual freedom and as government grows individual liberties shrink. This is because of the simple fact that freedom is intrinsically tied to personal responsibility. Just ask Sartre.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

That's because they're dumbshits. Limited government is what made us great in the first place and it's what will keep us great.

and how exactly does "limited" government apply in a large country with a large population and liberalized trade?

what other high population country's follow this limited government model?

why does all the empirical data show that across the OECD and the world as country's trade becomes more liberalized the size of government grows?

in what way does limited government absorb the economic impact of external shocks that are a function of liberalized trade?

what are the effects of "limited government" in a high population country with liberalized trade, low taxes, extreme income inequality, low worker protections and minimal social safety nets?

Merge and/or shrink government agencies.

I've been hearing this for decades.

Has it ever happened? No.

Will it happen?

A solid predictor or future behavior is recent and past behavior.

Originally Posted by LAM

and how exactly does "limited" government apply in a large country with a large population and liberalized trade?

what other high population country's follow this limited government model?

why does all the empirical data show that across the OECD and the world as country's trade becomes more liberalized the size of government grows?

in what way does limited government absorb the economic impact of external shocks that are a function of liberalized trade?

what are the effects of "limited government" in a high population country with liberalized trade, low taxes, extreme income inequality, low worker protections and minimal social safety nets?

I'd say China is a good example of a large-population country where the size of govt has shrunk amid major liberalization of trade. The "shock" has had a positive impact on the average person's life. There is now a middle classs of well over 400M people that didn't exist 20-30 years ago, when the govt played a much bigger role in people's day-to day lives. Of course, the banks are state-run and there is commom-sense regultion to avoid the type of crisis that US banks caused. But, it has been a laissez- faire approach by govt that has fostered the economic prosperity in China over the last 20 years, not layer after layer of govt bureaucracy .

You really think he will do that? Just not the democrat way. He is trying to get liberal votes. So far he has not archived anything he said he would

Originally Posted by dirtwarrior

You really think he will do that? Just not the democrat way. He is trying to get liberal votes. So far he has not archived anything he said he would

Shrinking the agencies is a GOP thing. He's trying to get the votes for those in the middle.

How is removing inefficiency a problem? I have worked with the EX-IM bank and the SBA, they are terribly inefficient and don't work well together even though they do go together if you do international business.

I cannot believe anyone can argue that eliminating waste and frivolous spending is a bad thing. This big government is the solution argument is so bull shit I can't even put it into words.

Originally Posted by oufinny

I cannot believe anyone can argue that eliminating waste and frivolous spending is a bad thing. This big government is the solution argument is so bull shit I can't even put it into words.

not many would argue that eliminating agency's and programs that are redundant or wasteful is not needed but doing this during recession recovery when unemployment is high is the absolute worst time. you do it during a positive period of economic expansion. government spending or consumption is not crowding out the private sector. this stuff is basic economics and also US recession economic history.

no no no.....

i'm buying into lam's theory......we need more gov't, more taxes, more social programs, more safety nets, more taxes, more gov't, more handouts, more bailout, less competition, less people working who pay taxes, more freebies from the gov't from the taxpayers.....

am i getting this right finally?

fuck off

Originally Posted by LAM

not many would argue that eliminating agency's and programs that are redundant or wasteful is not needed but doing this during recession recovery when unemployment is high is the absolute worst time. you do it during a positive period of economic expansion. government spending or consumption is not crowding out the private sector. this stuff is basic economics and also US recession economic history.

There I go, disagreed with the almighty LAM. If you read that right, it was to be done by attrition and the jobs won't immediately go away, they will phase out over time. But of course I am wrong in the eyes of liberals.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

That's because they're dumbshits. Limited government is what made us great in the first place and it's what will keep us great.

Word, Cue Ball.

Originally Posted by oufinny

There I go, disagreed with the almighty LAM. If you read that right, it was to be done by attrition and the jobs won't immediately go away, they will phase out over time. But of course I am wrong in the eyes of liberals.

tis not my fault you and many others have a lack of a true understand of econ. my position is the same as all those who understand this stuff and not many in the US do. certain belief systems impair critical thinking when combined with a country that tests in the bottom of the OECD in terms of mathematics it's easy to see why so many in the US point the finger in the wrong direction in regards to the true causes/solutions of our economic problems here.

only those in the far right in the US go on about this big gov crap, it's been going on for hundreds of years but even still in 2012 there is no consensus on what that term even means. as i have stated before words are only approximations of shared meanings and are open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by LAM

tis not my fault you and many others have a lack of a true understand of econ. my position is the same as all those who understand this stuff and not many in the US do. certain belief systems impair critical thinking when combined with a country that tests in the bottom of the OECD in terms of mathematics it's easy to see why so many in the US point the finger in the wrong direction in regards to the true causes/solutions of our economic problems here.

only those in the far right in the US go on about this big gov crap, it's been going on for hundreds of years but even still in 2012 there is no consensus on what that term even means. as i have stated before words are only approximations of shared meanings and are open to interpretation.

Yes the self proclaimed economist with not so much is an advanced degree in econ. You know what you read and regurgitate it, that does not make you an expert, sorry. Some of the facts you present are indisputable, having massive government spending that constantly raises the debt is not good economics, my piddly wink BBA in econ even taught me that. At least I have a degree in it though I never claim it as a reason why I am right.

Originally Posted by LAM

tis not my fault you and many others have a lack of a true understand of econ. my position is the same as all those who understand this stuff and not many in the US do. certain belief systems impair critical thinking when combined with a country that tests in the bottom of the OECD in terms of mathematics it's easy to see why so many in the US point the finger in the wrong direction in regards to the true causes/solutions of our economic problems here.

only those in the far right in the US go on about this big gov crap, it's been going on for hundreds of years but even still in 2012 there is no consensus on what that term even means. as i have stated before words are only approximations of shared meanings and are open to interpretation.

And that is where your argument goes off the tracks. Econ is not a hard science. This isn't Physics, or Chemistry. Even the guys who truly understand this stuff argue amongst themselves constantly. So how can your position be the same as all those who "understand this stuff" if they themselves can't agree? There isn't ever one solution to an economic indicator. To think that is asinine. There are awesome mathematical models that can be applied to situations in economics, but the truth is any mathematical model can not possibly take into consideration all of the stimuli in a real world environment. Your biggest problem LAM is that you got a little bit of education and somehow think you have become superior to your peers. When in actuality this education has blinded you not enlightened you. You have become in effect a modern day Pharisee.

Originally Posted by oufinny

Yes the self proclaimed economist with not so much is an advanced degree in econ. You know what you read and regurgitate it, that does not make you an expert, sorry. Some of the facts you present are indisputable, having massive government spending that constantly raises the debt is not good economics, my piddly wink BBA in econ even taught me that. At least I have a degree in it though I never claim it as a reason why I am right.

Reps if I could

Originally Posted by LAM

tis not my fault you...

Thine tongue is full of lies! Truly, though speaketh not the way of econonmy, but of heresy! Twere this slight putteth in mine presence, I was thrash thee soundly!

Tis most fortunate that here be not from whence I came.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

And that is where your argument goes off the tracks. Econ is not a hard science. This isn't Physics, or Chemistry. Even the guys who truly understand this stuff argue amongst themselves constantly. So how can your position be the same as all those who "understand this stuff" if they themselves can't agree? There isn't ever one solution to an economic indicator. To think that is asinine. There are awesome mathematical models that can be applied to situations in economics, but the truth is any mathematical model can not possibly take into consideration all of the stimuli in a real world environment. Your biggest problem LAM is that you got a little bit of education and somehow think you have become superior to your peers. When in actuality this education has blinded you not enlightened you. You have become in effect a modern day Pharisee.

Econ is a hard science yet not "as" hard as physics or chemistry it also contains aspects of some social sciences and history. it has become less hard once variables like liberalized trade and monetary systems were injected into it.

and my problem isn't that a got a little bit of education, it's that I have a lot far more than most in the US. I have 4 degrees, got a full scholarship to every single ivy league school in the US and could have graduated HS when I was 13, got a 1520 on the SAT's and I was high when I took it. my parents did not talk about race, religion or politics in front of my sister and I, nor did we spend our youth being brainwashed by american tv, I didn't start watching that crap until I was in my mid to late 20's after I got out of the navy. so in no way shape or form did I grow up like most, I highly doubt your parents made you read books during summer breaks in grade school and write reports on them. my head is not filled with various belief systems from my parents or a rigid political or religious ideology, pretty much the exact opposite. I live in a world based on the way things are, not as the were in decades past, should be or could have been and base my beliefs on facts based on empirical data that changes as that information does.

people go on and on about american innovation but except for the Internet which was the brain child of the US gov there hasn't been one single innovation in the US in the past century that allowed real income growth across all 5 income quintiles and every single job market. and because of the population growth of the US early in this century the US gov has since become one of the largest employers, like it or not that's they way it is. the US has a population of 300M double that of all the other large country's in the OECD that have not liberalized there trade (labor) to any degree near that of the US and have far greater worker protections and social safety net programs. people think that the US trades heavily, the US doesn't trade for shit. check out what we export to other country's, it's all the same products and not from industry's that employee a lot of people. 90% of personal consumption in the US is from goods made by US company's, less than 3% comes from China, that leaves 7% from various other country's...the US as a heavier trader, all lies and propaganda just like the "free market" delusion that politicians sell on tv, that do not exist in reality.

there was an independent report released years ago with data compiled from the dept of commerce and the census data from SIPP it showed that the net worth (which equals the value of all of a family’s total real and financial assets – including equity in a home, businesses, vehicles, other property, cash, bank accounts, stocks and bonds, and all other assets – less all debts) of 50% of the US was less than $1,000 in 1999 before the great economic expansion of the 2000's. so for those that want to keep dreaming that things are going to get better, they are not unless you are part of the top 20% or greater.

so I beg to argue that i do not think I know too much it's that most of you, know so very little..

Seriously, if you are that smart and don't work or as you put it "semi-retired" (if memory serves me right), you are doing nothing to contribute to innovation and society in general [honestly I think you are afraid to fail so you don't take the risk of trying to bring innovation]. This is the same arrogance that drives people crazy. I went to school with someone who got the same SAT score and a 36 on his ACT, he so far has amounted to shit and day trades. This is someone who wanted to do bio-medical engineering, would have been amazing at it if he could have put down the joint and hard drugs, but chose not to use his gift. My cousin is the same way, near genius level intelligence, now he works as an aid in the school system; at least now he wants to change that realizing you can't make a living doing that.

Why don't you give up the shameless self promoting and use one of your FOUR degrees to do something good instead of just reading a bunch of studies online everyday? After reading that, I really have very little respect left for you. Wasting what appears to be a gift is no different in my eyes than being a career criminal as it is a burden on society either way.