HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » President Obama is Beatin...

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:40 AM

President Obama is Beating the GOPers at their own game..Reducing Gov't

Them GOPers grumbling its not enough to reduce the deficit....oops

Obama plays chess...just got a free ROOK

45 replies, 5993 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply President Obama is Beating the GOPers at their own game..Reducing Gov't (Original post)
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 OP
oh08dem Jan 2012 #1
EC Jan 2012 #2
leftstreet Jan 2012 #5
izquierdista Jan 2012 #21
EC Jan 2012 #25
RainDog Jan 2012 #3
leftstreet Jan 2012 #4
JoePhilly Jan 2012 #37
grantcart Jan 2012 #6
DCBob Jan 2012 #17
Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #26
cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #7
Samantha Jan 2012 #8
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #9
indykatie1955 Jan 2012 #10
WillyT Jan 2012 #11
Summer Hathaway Jan 2012 #12
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #14
Number23 Jan 2012 #45
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #13
markpkessinger Jan 2012 #15
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #16
joeglow3 Jan 2012 #24
LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #18
savalez Jan 2012 #30
pnorman Jan 2012 #35
LiberalFighter Jan 2012 #39
Edweird Jan 2012 #19
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #32
DCBob Jan 2012 #20
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #22
Karmadillo Jan 2012 #23
MinervaX Jan 2012 #27
Shankapotomus Jan 2012 #28
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #29
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #31
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #36
savalez Jan 2012 #33
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #38
dawg Jan 2012 #34
hughee99 Jan 2012 #40
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #42
hughee99 Jan 2012 #43
opihimoimoi Jan 2012 #44
Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #41

Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:44 AM

1. Obama plays chess

The GOP pretenders play with themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

2. He's taking away their issues

one at a time and loudly. First cutting taxes, now smaller government..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:26 AM

5. If their issues were popular, why'd they lose in 2006 and 2008?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:33 AM

21. They didn't lose in 2008

 

They got someone to carry out 99% of their policies AND someone to blame it on when those policies don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:10 PM

25. They don't need to be popular.

They need to be IRRELEVANT. I know I'm tired of hearing the repubs and tps screaming about smaller government, taxes, deficit, yada, yada, yada...I'm glad he's taking these issues out of the mix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:19 AM

3. cool. he should close down the Drug Czar's palace

aka The Office of National Drug Control Policy

This is a govt. expansion program started by Ronald Raygun and resulted in govt waste and failure. It is a propaganda arm of the govt., and really has no useful function other than to provide some beltway insider a big salary and title.

Health and Human Services can handle the issue of drug abuse harm reduction. The FDA and DEA can handle their jobs - honestly, this is just bureaucratic pork.

via wiki - As of 2011, the ONDCP is requesting funding for 98 full time employees, 64 (65.31%) of whom would be paid at either GS-15, GS-14, or SES pay grades, or more than $105,211.00 yearly, being adjusted for Washington, D.C. cost of living expenses.[7]

I will not, of course, hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

In addition, Obama should instruct the DEA to assume cannabis has been decriminalized and move law enforcement to illegal meth and heroin production and distribution, with the goal of providing ways for addicts to move under the purview of HHS.

more wiki

In September 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that salaries and expenses at ONDCP be reduced from $26.6 million in fiscal 2006 to $11.5 million in fiscal 2007, to "more closely reflect actual performance." Committee members said they would request funding for a study of ONDCP by the National Academy of Public Administration. They also ordered a Government Accountability Office study on the distribution of grants. Plus, they directed the Director to provide quarterly updates on travel expenditures, staffing levels and plans for future hirings.[11]

By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.[12] According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[13] the director of the ONDCP

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

The Government Accountability Office has found that this law authorizes the ONDCP to disseminate misleading information (lie) in order to oppose legalization[14]

Since when do American citizens need an office of anti-drug propaganda? Since when do we need to spend millions of dollar for their failed attempts - their work has, apparently, resulted in MORE cannabis use, not less. I'd say that demonstrates a HUGE FAILURE b/c Americans don't want the govt. to spend taxpayer dollars lying to them and they say... fuck you, in response.

They have PAID for writers to put propaganda in TV shows...wtf?

And their anti-marijuana commercials, from studies, indicated that they made females more likely to use marijuana. Two diff. studies indicated failure. Yet the office continues to lie.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/09/a_white_house_drug_deal_gone_bad.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:23 AM

4. Wait. So now drowning gvt in a bathtub is good?

One needs a scorecard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 07:48 PM

37. Yea, that's what Obama said.

Geeze ... I used to think that progressive were smarter and understood complex issues, and were more nuanced, than the Tea Party.

Maybe not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:30 AM

6. Not reducing government - reducing bureacracy - big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:30 AM

17. +1... redundant functions are rampant in the Fed Govt.

Especially in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:58 PM

26. I agree

Killing is definately redundant in this world. Who needs another institution to get THAT done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:30 AM

7. That's bad policy. If the politics made up for it then

I'd see the point, but the political upside (if any) is not enough to justify moving the national center further right. (For many elections to come)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:33 AM

8. True -- he is pulling the Clinton maneuver

In the 90s, Clinton realized which Republican pushes were going to go through with or without his support. So he purloined them, taking credit, and infuriating the Republicans. It is a joy to see Obama doing this as well (for the most part).

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:56 AM

9. The Man is Pono....he is on it....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:09 AM

10. Good Move By the President

Consolidation of functions and use of attrition as a primary way to reduce excess jobs. This way he controls the approach which may not be perfect but is sure to be infinitely better than it would play out with republicans driving the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:14 AM

11. Question: How Many More Government Workers Will Be Laid Off ?

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:38 AM

12. It was bound to happen

the inevitable response:

If Obama did it, it must have a down side - a down side which must be proclaimed loudly and clearly, lest someone somewhere give him credit for something.

Had he announced a plan to hire more government workers, we'd be hearing about where the money was coming from to pay them.

Had he announced keeping gov't workers at the current number, he'd be accused of upholding the 'status quo' that everyone kvetches about.

With some folks, the man can't win. Whatever he does, it's wrong. Thank God DU is not representative of the real world, nor its inhabitants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 03:34 AM

14. The man cannot do anything right w/o the Whiners nit pickin

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 07:16 PM

45. You are definitely becoming one of my new faves here.

Your whole post is gold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:41 AM

13. Supposedly, the set up is to shut down the positions as people retire or move on.

Of course there may well be some firings that aren't replaced too but the gist is attrition, not that I think much of the whole direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 04:39 AM

15. According to Rachel Maddow's reporting . . .

. . . none. There will be a reduction of 1,000 workers over a ten-year period, to take place by attrition, not by lay-offs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 07:29 AM

16. Its a GAIN...less makes for efficiency and streamlined...perfect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:44 AM

24. That is NOTHING

 

We have over 2,650,000 Federal employees. Normal efficiencies should result in more than a 1,000 reduction. Now, I agree it needs to be through attrition, but we need more than 100 a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:37 AM

18. How big is government compared to previous years?

I consider big government to be a myth until the numbers are produced for each year and there is a showing of big government. And if the increase is proportional to the population it serves then it still is not big government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:12 PM

30. This article has some info on that

I read it yesterday and was happy to see at least some statistics:

Historically speaking, ďOf the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.Ē George W. Bush managed to both reduce the number of federal employees while at the same time growing the size of the government. He did this with an explosion of privatization. George W. Bush outsourced every government function that he could get his hands on. Bush more than doubled the amount that the federal government spent on private contracts. W. didnít reduce the size of the federal government. He cooked the books. The end result was the Republicans love of big government had been outsourced, not diminished.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 06:07 PM

35. "84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under...."

I never knew that! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:51 PM

39. The 84% increase under Republicans are just the federal employees

Not including increase in private contractors. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:43 AM

19. It's more RW crap from a "Dem" president. Apparently RW is the new "progressive".

 

At least according to some here....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:15 PM

32. The Sparkle Pony Ride starts at noon.

Better get in line early.

Har-dee-har-har!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 08:47 AM

20. Smart move by the President.. politically and practically.

What he is proposing makes sense and puts the GOPers on the hot seat. Plus it takes away a major talking point. I suspect we will be hearing more and more ideas like this as we campaign season heats up.

from Boston Globe:

-snip-
"Right now, we have a 21st century economy, but we've still got a government organized for the 20th century," Obama said. "Over the years, the needs of Americans have changed, but our government has not. In fact, it's gotten even more complex. And that has to change."

On government reorganization, Obama wants a guarantee from Congress that he could get a vote within 90 days on any idea to consolidate federal agencies, provided it saves money and cuts the government. His first order of business would be to merge six major trade and commerce agencies into one -- eliminating, among others, the Commerce Department.
-snip-
The proposal is in part a challenge to congressional Republicans since it embraces the traditional GOP goal of smaller government, and Obama called on Congress to back him.
-snip-
Obama is also promising new tax incentives for businesses that bring jobs to the U.S. instead of shipping them overseas, and he wants to eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource.

more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/01/14/obama_promotes_insourcing_government_reorg/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:00 AM

22. What a President we got>>>Priceless...full of wisdom...so Pono...

&feature=related

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 11:24 AM

23. He is awesome at out-Republicaning the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:01 PM

27. Obama

 

The best Republican President since Clinton?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:05 PM

28. That's one way to silence them

Give your opponents what the want and when it fails or is unpopular what else can they say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:09 PM

29. The GOPers are too easy these daze....their BS not selling in a tough crowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:13 PM

31. Hahaha!!

"Just got a free rook", that's great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 07:38 PM

36. LOL...its nice to know people knows Rooks from knights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:17 PM

33. The msm never attacks Republican hypocrisy.

So someone's got to.

The strategic gamesmanship here isnít centered around a question of presidential power. Obamaís remarks today were a stealth attack on Republican hypocrisy. If Republicans refuse to grant the president the power that he requested, this will become another campaign issue for Obama. If Republicans do grant him the authority to reorganize his branch, President Obama gets to campaign on streamlining the federal government for small business. Itís a win-win for Obama, and all lose situation for the GOP.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-21st-century-government

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:43 PM

38. Poor GOPers OutFoxed again.....Wheres Boner these daze?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 02:20 PM

34. Yay. Now the public thinks shrinking government is an unmitigated good.

The Republicans want to shrink it. Obama wants to shrink it.

Yay. We're all in agreement now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:07 PM

40. Some would call this "caving in".

Apparently I missed the part where giving your opponent some of what they want without getting anything in return from them was "brilliant chess strategy".

Yes, a chessmaster indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 04:47 PM

42. me think its better than to let them GOPers to do it and claim credit

Obama cut them off at the "Pass" once more...he gets the credit

and not the GOPers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 05:26 PM

43. There's only "credit" to be had if you're doing something that SHOULD be done.

With Obama claiming "credit" for things the GOP have been demanding for years makes it look like the GOP was right all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 06:41 PM

44. Me also thinks the move is a good one,,,therefore,,,the Pres gets a ROOK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opihimoimoi (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:16 PM

41. "Obama plays chess...just got a free ROOK" His own rook. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread