Ask Me Help Desk - Obama admits big government doesn't work

He said this to Chris Matthews who was doing a knee pad interview of the emperor.

"The challenge, I think, that we have going forward is not so much my personal management style or particular issues around White House organization,” Obama said. “It actually has to do with what I referred to earlier, which is we have these big agencies, some of which are outdated, some of which are not designed properly.”
Obama: Health care problems don

To that I say 'no sh*t' !
If it was his plan to eliminate ,streamline ,or even reform these agencies of government he'd get my support. Instead ,he uses their inefficiencies as a dodge to deflect blame away from his management .

This isn't the 1st time we've heard this dodge either . David Axelrod spoke of a big agencies disconnect from the leadership of the executive in his comments about the IRS scadal .
“Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you because the government is so vast. You go through these [controversies] all because of this stuff that is impossible to know if you’re the president or working in the White House, and yet you’re responsible for it and it’s a difficult situation.”
Axelrod:

It's a trend ;the progressive statists who champion big government are the 1st to blame big government for their problems running it ,and their disconnect from it's operations . But you never hear them suggest that a solution to that would be to reduce the size of that unwieldy Leviathan .

well reality is it is government by the people, sometimes you have to let local people manage. the trick is to now what they can do. We have seen that somethings work at a local level and some do not.

Government is really about big ideas, not micromanaging but bureaucrats don't know this..
Now health care is a case in point, you had at a local level some people being denied benefits and coverage, this had to change; the big idea, but the level of management on the ground that really is the question

In the same interview he also excused the IRS targeting of conservatives as a local office struggling to navigate...er, "streamline" that bureaucracy to do the right thing.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/06/ob...odys-outraged/

Here's where big government does work. (sarcasm font engaged).

You know that big $13 billion smackdown of JP Morgan? They managed to work in some sweet cash for community organizers.

Will Eric Holder's Deal Create a New Mortgage Crisis? - Finance Post

Nothing like throwing in some sweet kickbacks for your political friends and fueling the fire that led to the meltdown in the first place. What could go wrong?

This is the problem. Not trying to be overly critical here, but you don't seem to have the political will or the means to doing anything about it.

Reducing the size of government is only a partial solution. Probably more importantly, is the ability to allow government bureaucracies and departments evolve in line with a rapidly changing environment.

On a related issue.

You can discuss this issue all you like, but I can't see anything within your system that allows you to break away from the ruling elites.

Tal is close to being right. You defend the side that you believe will 'trickle down' the most benefits that help you.

'trickle down' is a complete misrepresentation of our position . It it's a clever mockery invented by humorist Will Rogers during the Great Depression, and before him populist William Jennings Bryant ..... and in no way represents my position or the conservative ,or free market ,or supply side positions. But I have to congratulate the left for getting away with this misrepresentation for decades . There is no 'trickle-down' school of economics which maintains that the trickle-down effect is the main justification for limiting taxes on the rich ,or anyone else .
But it's a nice straw man to knock down . Here is the only theory that can be attributed to me . Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way.

Quote:

Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way

pardon, my bias is showing. Tom we all know that regulation can impede corporate progress but what you have now isn't progress and taxes isn't holding anything back. What you have is lack of business confidence and lack of investment. Even if you lowered the tax to zero it is not an incentive to invest because business has to believe it can succeed. The problem you have is the guts have been kicked out of your industry by the very people who should be investing in it. I think we all need a fresh approach to foriegn investment both internal and external. the price of doing business in the country should be the establishment of industry in the country. protectionist yes, but common sense. we have the same problem you do, in our case multinationals contracting but not to return manufacturing to their own country but to increase their volume from places like South Korea. This is not in the national interest and is a ghost town Detriot in your national interest? You can't pay your people asian wages, but you can insist on local content

Quote:

and is a ghost town Detriot in your national interest?

Detroit is the inevitable outcome of decades of progressive rule. There is nothing that would've saved the city once the union's influence dominated the politics of the city . The fact is that foreign manufactures have come into the country and parked their manufacturing plants in business friendly cities and states ....and have thrived manufacturing here .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Detroit is the inevitable outcome of decades of progressive rule. There is nothing that would've saved the city once the union's influence dominated the politics of the city . The fact is that foreign manufactures have come into the country and parked their manufacturing plants in business friendly cities and states ....and have thrived manufacturing here .

So what does this tell you? I expect your response is unions are bad. But it should be telling you that Detroit was making dinosaurs no one wanted. lazy capital, not lazy people

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

'trickle down' is a complete misrepresentation of our position . It it's a clever mockery invented by humorist Will Rogers during the Great Depression, and before him populist William Jennings Bryant ..... and in no way represents my position or the conservative ,or free market ,or supply side positions. But I have to congratulate the left for getting away with this misrepresentation for decades . There is no 'trickle-down' school of economics which maintains that the trickle-down effect is the main justification for limiting taxes on the rich ,or anyone else .
But it's a nice straw man to knock down . Here is the only theory that can be attributed to me . Money left in the private sector is more productive than money confiscated by the government , and the path to growth is for the government to get out of the way.

Exactly right. Both sides realized there is a disparity but we disagree on how to solve it. Mandating wages and punishing the rich does nothing to solve the real problem of growing the economy and creating demand, it only exacerbates the situation. The rich will still be just fine while those in need will compete for the crumbs.

You guys never quit,

The Detroit Bankruptcy | Demos

Quote:

The City of Detroit's bankruptcy was driven by a severe decline in revenues (and, importantly, not an increase in obligations to fund pensions). Depopulation and long-term unemployment caused Detroit's property and income tax revenues to plummet. The state of Michigan exacerbated the problems by slashing revenue it shared with the city. The city's overall expenses have declined over the last five years, although its financial expenses have increased. In addition, Wall Street sold risky financial instruments to the city, which now threaten the resolution of this crisis. To return Detroit to long-term fiscal health, the city must increase revenue and extract itself from the financial transactions that threaten to drain its budget even further.

Quote:

Detroit's financial expenses have increased significantly, and that is a direct result of the complex financial deals Wall Street banks urged on the city over the last several years, even though its precarious cash flow position meant these deals posed a great threat to the city. The biggest contributing factor to the increase in Detroit's legacy expenses is a series of complex deals it entered into in 2005 and 2006 to assume $1.6 billion in debt. Instead of issuing plain vanilla general obligation bonds, the city financed the debt using certificates of participation (COPs), which is a financial structure that municipalities often use to get around debt restrictions. Eight hundred million dollars of these COPs carried a variable interest rate, which the city synthetically converted to a fixed rate using interest rate swaps.

These swaps carried hidden risks, and these risks increased after the Federal Reserve drove down interest rates to near zero in response to the financial crisis. The deals included provisions that would allow the banks to terminate the swaps under specified conditions and collect termination payments, which would entitle the banks to immediate payment of all projected future value of the swaps to the bank counterparties. Such conditions included a credit rating downgrade of the city to a level below “investment grade,” appointment of an emergency manager to run the city and failure of the city to make timely payments. Projected future value balloons in low, short-term rate conditions. This is because the difference between the fixed swap payments made by the city and the floating swap payments projected to be paid by the banks increases. Because all of these events have occurred, the banks are now demanding upwards of $250-350 million in swap termination payments.

These swap deals were particularly ill-suited for a city like Detroit, which had been hovering on the edge of a credit rating downgrade for years. Because the risk of a credit downgrade below “investment grade” was so great, the likelihood of a termination was imprudently high. The banks and insurance companies were in a far better position to understand the magnitude of these risks and they had at least an ethical duty to forbear from providing the swaps under such precarious circumstances. The law recognizes special duties that sophisticated financial institutions owe to special entities like cities in providing complex financial products. A strong case can be made that the banks that sold these swaps may have breached their ethical, and possibly legal, obligations to the city in executing these deals.

Quote:

•The emergency manager's plan to pay the swap termination fees outside of the bankruptcy process should be abandoned. The bank counterparties should be made to bear the consequences of the original swap transaction, and they should be pushed to forego their projected profit (the measure of the termination payment), given the large profits they have already earned as a result of the unusually low interest rates that resulted from the financial crash. The emergency manager should also press for prorated rebates on the premiums for insurance on the swaps. And, if necessary, the state should be enlisted to guarantee the city's swaps to avoid payment of termination fees. The termination fees will become smaller as interest rates rise over time, which they are likely to do.

I copied and pasted just because I know wingers don't read or like too.

A deal that should be set aside using swaps and devrivative instruments to manage debt is a quick way to bankruptcy

No one has asked the obvious question but I will. What happened to the revenue sharing funds that they state didn't give Detroit?

Tom wrote:

"trickle down" is a complete misrepresentation of our position.

Good use of the royal plural. My post wasn't specifically addressed to you, but now you mention it I will sum up in a few words. In essence what you seem to be saying is there are Republicans and there are Conservatives.

It makes no difference who invented the term "trickle down theory" or where it came from. This has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory

You may be advocating a conservative view just as the left is advocating a socialist view. However, in reality both sides are actually getting a Democrat/Republican "trickle down". Might have something to do with big business hijacking government.

Quote:

Might have something to do with big business hijacking government.

it is exactly that Tutt government by the corporation for the corporation that the profits of the corporation should not vanish from the Earth. These fellows arn't conservatives they are traitors, defending ideals that were never part of whatever capitalist utopia the founders founded. Wait a minute, the founders founded a liberal utopia the antithesis of what these guys believe

Yes, I am sure the Founders would be very disappointed if they could see how government has evolved into a system of ruling elites.

It's the new world order and the elites are entitled to run it, and the people are revolting. Austerity for all the many, but never the few will never work. It never has.

Tal ,what hasn't ever worked is the tyranny of the majority . What also has never worked long term is a Republic...and that has something to do with the tyranny of the majority too. Once the majority learn they can vote themselves largess at the expense of someone else ,the system declines,eventually crashes and burns. The founders tried to put safeguards into our ruling document ;but over a century of progressive chipping away at them have all but destroyed the foundation that built the nation.
That's one of the reasons I now think a new constitutional convention is in order .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tal ,what hasn't ever worked is the tyranny of the majority . What also has never worked long term is a Republic...and that has something to do with the tyranny of the majority too. Once the majority learn they can vote themselves largess at the expense of someone else ,the system declines,eventually crashes and burns. The founders tried to put safeguards into our ruling document ;but over a century of progressive chipping away at them have all but destroyed the foundation that built the nation.
That's one of the reasons I now think a new constitutional convention is in order .

At last! this is not the constitutional republic created by the founders. The majority are not a tyranny, Tom, tyranny has always been in the hands of the minority the 1%. In case you hadn't noticed the only people voting largesse have been the representatives not the majority. the only people who have maintained the tyranny on behalf of the 1% have beeen the representatives who by strange coincidence have been representing noone by themselves and the 1% who bought them

Quote:

You guys never quit,

Apparently we're supposed to take the spin of a left-leaning group as fact.