[SannyGlow]

Premise is good, (supposing the intent is genuine).
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...merge-agencies

Savings are relatively paltry ($3 Billion in 10 years, to the Federal Government that's comparable to an alcoholic drinking one less drink one day a year).

Is what we are seeing here a positive sign or simply more campaign politics?

[imnaone]

Campaign politics.

[VanDerSmok]

Begging for permission to close the barn door after you've let the horses out. . .

And it's not even closing the door.

Where was this 3 years ago when the House and Senate had significant Democrat majorities?

[flnastyax]

I can't say that I disagree with either of you. My next question is whether this will be designed in such manner that it will get blocked in partisan fireworks and rhetoric. It certainly would arm the Obama camp with a means to say "Republicans aren't really interested in cuts! See! They just blocked this bill!".

[gettoblaster]

Whoring himself to the libertarians who hate government. That's what it sounds like, IMO.

I wouldn't say its necessarily a dumb idea, it might give him some leverage against his Republican opponent.

[drgshmcm]

While i agree its a much needed move (too much bloat imo), i do think it was done for political maneuvering.

[paratayoma]

Let's see. The GOP's biggest platform has been smaller gov, yet Obama, who never once desired smaller gov before, during or after his 08 campaign now advocates smaller gov only 10 months out from an election?

Its debatable how much the Republicans want "smaller government" either - sure, they want more tax cuts for the rich and less regulation for the banks and corporations... but that's not the same thing, is it?

[Daruhuw]

The GOP doesn't want an outright smaller government, and it hasn't pushed for anything of the sort for generations. It merely wants government limited in areas (eg. regulatory powers) different from other areas in which Democrats desire a limited government (eg. military). It's a partisan teeter totter. Regardless of that, I'll still give Obama credit where he's due. Trimming a little bureaucratic fat may not qualify as some monumental step, but it's still a plus. Fishing for votes or whatever the ulterior motives may be, Hell be as cynical as you please in that regard; that's ultimately irrelevant in my eyes because it's still a step in the right direction no matter how you slice it.

[boxcigsnick]

The GOP doesn't want an outright smaller government, and it hasn't pushed for anything of the sort for generations. It merely wants government limited in areas (eg. regulatory powers) different from other areas in which Democrats desire a limited government (eg. military). It's a partisan teeter totter. Regardless of that, I'll still give Obama credit where he's due. Trimming a little bureaucratic fat may not qualify as some monumental step, but it's still a plus. Fishing for votes or whatever the ulterior motives may be, Hell be as cynical as you please in that regard; that's ultimately irrelevant in my eyes because it's still a step in the right direction no matter how you slice it.

I think all "consolidation" translates to is I have to go through 27 layers of the phone tree when I call a federal agency.

Regardless of motive, I recognize it is a step in the right direction. However, when you look at our annual deficits and our national debt, it seems that our gov has done little to address this increasingly scary situation we are in. Sure, we can cut $4 trillion over 10 years, and even repeal the Bush tax cuts, but anyone able to do the math knows that this country is still on the fast track to complete financial collapse.

Think about it, how do we really eliminate a $1.5 trillion deficit? That number is astronomical! What about the $15 trillion of debt? How do we reduce it, let alone stop it from increasing? Won't our lack of REAL action eventually lead us off a cliff? Only draconian cuts across the board, plus unprecedented tax hikes will make a difference, but of course not without hurting millions of people and businesses. Plus, any real action will be political suicide for anyone supporting it.

I think we're "F"d.

A big step would be actual healthcare reform, because that's the elephant in the room when it comes to our budget. Tricare, Medicare, bankruptcy, and unemployment are in part affected by our out of control medical expenses.

[snunsebrugs]

A big step would be actual healthcare reform, because that's the elephant in the room when it comes to our budget. Tricare, Medicare, bankruptcy, and unemployment are in part affected by our out of control medical expenses.

For most of this thread, I've been in agreement with you. But while I agree that healthcare reform is needed, I don't want Obamacare or any other mandated care system to be the direction that reform takes.

As for Obama's power grab, I've often wondered if there is something bigger going on behind the scenes on both sides of the isle. For some reason, I always get the feeling that all the politicking is just covering up something else.

[usaneisfiecup]

How about a plan to slowly change/consolidate worldwide governance and control? I'm no conspiracy theorist kind of guy (puts me in a sad mood), but there is definitely no shortage of info/bs/(or truth?) out on the internet to make you consider the possibilities.

Like the EU? I have no problem with it in THEORY...in reality...probably would never work.