Comments on: Obama sees the limits of government http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/ A clear-eyed view from Zachary Karabell Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:10:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: LysanderTucker http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-288 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:05:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-288 Was this article a joke? It must have been! This is why most languages have 1 Bible while the English bible has dozens of translations. So easy to twist this language around to mean whatever you want it to.

]]>
By: Crash866 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-287 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:42:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-287 Seriously…not by the debit numbers and his last state of the union. Investments and social programs.

]]>
By: OkieRedux http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-286 Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:36:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-286 Calling an African American president a “lawn jockey” is definitely a racial slur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawn_jockey

]]>
By: jwab http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-285 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:35:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-285 This author has deluded himself into believing that President Obama is not a big-government liberal, and now he’s poorly trying to convince the masses. ‘Oh, the government isn’t expanding as fast as the far left would like? I wonder why. I guess the age of big government is over, it must have its limits.’ Or perhaps it’s because the people who don’t want to cut our nation’s debt are enslaving our children and grand-children with massive amounts of debt, and some are fighting back. The fact that the govt. is expanding at all is disgraceful. Get a clue Mr. Karabell.

]]>
By: PatStrother http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-284 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:54:12 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-284 “Take the minimum wage, the issue that received perhaps the most attention among the president’s proposals, save gun control. But increasing the minimum wage isn’t a government program. It’s a bill that potentially mandates higher costs for some employers. Whether you love it or hate it, it is not an expansion of government ‑ and certainly not of government spending.”

It’s essentially a tax. The extra $2 dollars creates no value to the consumer or the employer. It ignores basic economic supply and demand theory. About all we know for sure is that a $9 an hour minimum wage would reduce the supply of available jobs.

]]>
By: RonRonDoRon http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-283 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:11:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-283 “So while healthcare is billed as an expansion of government, it is more a continuing issue of cost and delivery of something that has to be paid for by someone and at some cost.”

This sentence by the author reveals his complete lack of understanding of the workings and advantages of a market economy. For decades, the healthcare market has been distorted by the third-party payer model of employer-provided health insurance and Medicare. The consumers of healthcare are insulated from recognizing the price of what they consume. The ACCA is designed to make that distortion universal (and introduces other distortions, like eliminating the actuarial basis of healthcare insurance).

Does the author think the government’s much greater involvement in regulating healthcare is going to cost nothing? More importantly, cost is not the only, or even the most important, measure of the size of government. The most important measure is the amount of control – the portion of the society and economy that government controls.

The most insidious expansion of government control in recent decades has been the increasing use of unfunded mandates. I’m sure that Federal spending could be enormously reduced if, rather than collecting and spending taxes to do whatever the legislature wants done, the legislature simply passed laws requiring private parties to spend money on whatever the legislature wants done. The only spending necessary would be the cost of enforcement. If the budget was thereby cut in half, would that be a great reduction in the size of government?

]]>
By: Anonymous http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-281 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 19:08:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-281 “So while healthcare is billed as an expansion of government, it is more a continuing issue of cost and delivery of something that has to be paid for by someone and at some cost.”

This sentence by the author reveals his complete lack of understanding of the workings and advantages of a market economy. For decades, the healthcare market has been distorted by the third-party payer model of employer-provided health insurance and Medicare. The consumers of healthcare are insulated from recognizing the price of what they consume. The ACCA is designed to make that distortion universal (and introduces other distortions, like eliminating the actuarial basis of healthcare insurance).

Does the author think the government’s much greater involvement in regulating healthcare is going to cost nothing? More importantly, cost is not the only, or even the most important, measure of the size of government. The most important measure is the amount of control – the portion of the society and economy that government controls.

The most insidious expansion of government control in recent decades has been the increasing use of unfunded mandates. I’m sure that Federal spending could be enormously reduced if, rather than collecting and spending taxes to do whatever the legislature wants done, the legislature simply passed laws requiring private parties to spend money on whatever the legislature wants done. The only spending necessary would be the cost of enforcement. If the budget was thereby cut in half, would that be a great reduction in the size of government?

]]>
By: thesafesrufer http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-280 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:51:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-280 Obama sees no limits on government Zachary. We have massive federal departments controlling Health Care, Farming, Transportation, Commerce, Education, and Energy.

Please name some element of American society outside of religion that Obama doesn’t see the federal government have the leading role in?

It seems that liberals like Mr. Karabell realize how far beyond the mainstream of American thought their vision is so they feel compelled to throw up smokescreens to obfuscate and distract.

Obama and liberals see absolutely no limits on the federal government whatsoever.

]]>
By: CoMark http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-279 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:03:39 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-279 LOL, so the new line from the Obama Sycophany Media Propaganda Machine is that Obama is actually for small government. That’s hilarious to anyone with a brain and 1st grade math skills.

Fortunately for Obama and his Propaganda Ministers in the press, the general public is actually stupid enough to believe this nonsense

]]>
By: coelacanth10 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/2013/02/15/obama-sees-the-limits-of-government/#comment-278 Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:58:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/?p=117#comment-278 Correct me if I’m wrong, but because the Senate has only passed one budget, and three continuing resolutions, that 800 billion dollar stimulus is budgeted and spent annually.
Obamacare cannot be called anything, but an extension of big government, and it will be proven unworkable due to direct tax increases and fees associated with it provisions, increased insurance rates, incomplete exchange structures, and the total inability of the federal government to take on the task of implementing this program. When the federal government attempts to make this vast program work at all, it will fail. The costs and delivery of this program
is already unworkable as people will see to their dismay. Add expanded medicaid to this plan and it will be hopeless.
I agree that we are in transition, but it is the last gasp of the liberal agenda which has outgrown its slight usefulness, because big government has outgrown its resources. Whether we come crashing down tomorrow or at the end of this administration is unknown, but Americans should get ready for a greatly reduced standard of living in the next decade. Too much has been manipulated- the media the Fed, the markets, and the government. This manipulation can only delay and intensify the ordinary reassertion of capitalistic forces, once these influences are removed. And who will pay? The next two generations who voted for this administration, who what they deserved, who will learn discipline and frugality as a result, which in the end may make their lives better.

]]>