Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2012 Elections => Topic started by: retromike22 on March 02, 2012, 08:52:56 PM



Title: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: retromike22 on March 02, 2012, 08:52:56 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing Romney talk about how he is best qualified to be President because he's not a career politician and has extensive work in the private sector. I have three problems with this.

1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage. Romney's message is basically this: "I am best qualified to be President, because I have a limited amount of experience in government."

It's like a game of mad libs: "I am best qualified to be (occupation), because I have a limited amount of experience in (position's field)."

I can't imagine this working: "I am best qualified to be a surgeon, because I have a limited amount of experience in physiology."

2. Romney believes that the main problem confronting the U.S. is the bad economy, and he is best qualified to fix the economy because he has worked as a businessman. But a businessman is an expert on business. If we needed an expert on the economy to be the President, shouldn't we be looking for.... an economist?

3. If I was a conservative, and I wanted someone who would enact conservative change, I would want someone who had the experience and history of enacting conservative change. I think when rating a politician's (and not an average person's) conservatism or liberalism, we should focus on what they did when they were in public office, and not how they lived their  personal lives.

For instance, say someone is a limited government conservative who has spent their career in public office. Some may say that he is not a conservative person because he is using the govt and not the private sector to enact change. But if the change he is making is conservative, then he is a conservative.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: pbrower2a on March 03, 2012, 07:15:20 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing Romney talk about how he is best qualified to be President because he's not a career politician and has extensive work in the private sector. I have three problems with this.

1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage. Romney's message is basically this: "I am best qualified to be President, because I have a limited amount of experience in government."

Maybe a low-skilled job in which burnout is a high likelihood.  Someone who gets burned out as a small-town city councilman or a district attorney is unlikely to have much of a career in elective office.  One can learn something from about every public office that one wins in an election or gets an appointment to. For a politician I want to see someone who can still learn and adapt. 

Quote
2. Romney believes that the main problem confronting the U.S. is the bad economy, and he is best qualified to fix the economy because he has worked as a businessman. But a businessman is an expert on business. If we needed an expert on the economy to be the President, shouldn't we be looking for.... an economist?

Such overstates the importance of experience with responsibility for profit and loss as a qualifier for political office. We have thousands of people with P&L experience who have shown themselves capable of administering organizations. But do we elect hotel managers or restaurateurs to be President? Such  people might have extensive experience, but such experience is narrow.

Government, unlike a business, is not a profit-and-loss operation. War, diplomacy, education, public works projects, welfare/relief, and the administration of justice are not done for profit of the government.  Does anyone believe that the government works best if it maximizes tax revenues and minimizes services to the public to get maximal surpluses?

We waged World War II to keep America from being pillaged by Hitler and Tojo... and of course preventing the atrocities associated with their gangster regimes. It might be "profitable" to sell California to China... which would be highly unpopular in California and many other places. We set up most of the Interstate Highway System as freeways because such facilitated travel and highway safety. It was manifestly a good idea to lock Charles Manson away for life.     

Quote
3. If I was a conservative, and I wanted someone who would enact conservative change, I would want someone who had the experience and history of enacting conservative change. I think when rating a politician's (and not an average person's) conservatism or liberalism, we should focus on what they did when they were in public office, and not how they lived their  personal lives.

True except perhaps on the "personal life". Success as a politician (maybe a senior military officer after the war) is a strong indicator of success at the next level. How much success does one have in getting legislation passed? Does one have his name attached to a large number of bills introduced or is one a chair of a legislative committee? Of course oratory matters because such is how one leads from the Presidency (one clear distinction between a great President like FDR and a weak one like Dubya).

Personal life matters to the extent that egregious behavior indicates a contempt for life, property, and institutions. A criminal record (except on trumped up causes, as with Havel or Mandela) should be a reasonable disqualification. I'd have trouble with someone with a habit of extreme speeding (50 in a school zone?). The difference between getting away with trashing a hotel room and not getting away with it is having the funds or having relatives with the funds to bail one out; trashing a hotel room itself shows a contempt for property rights whether one gets six months in the county lock-up or whether Daddy comes up with $10K payable to some hotel company. Anyone can get into a bad matrimonial relationship and a divorce or be seduced into an affair if one has an impotent or frigid spouse... but a serial divorcee is probably not up to the ethical standard that most of us expect of someone in a position of great responsibility. Bankruptcy or business failure? One had better have solid exculpation. Judgment on other things  is relevant.         

Quote
For instance, say someone is a limited government conservative who has spent their career in public office. Some may say that he is not a conservative person because he is using the govt and not the private sector to enact change. But if the change he is making is conservative, then he is a conservative.

People can make their living in government and be conservatives. Tom Coburn is as an indisputable conservative as Carl Levin is an indisputable liberal.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 03, 2012, 07:25:26 PM
"1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage."

Do you see it as more of a profession or as a service? If it is the latter, then that radically changes how you view politics.

If it's a profession, then yes, time spent in office in minor positions and working your way up is the way it works. However, if it is service, then what you want to see is experience outside of the government.

This is why Cain was so popular, because he appealed to those who wanted someone who was competent and outside the system. People are unhappy with the system at present.

"2. Romney believes that the main problem confronting the U.S. is the bad economy, and he is best qualified to fix the economy because he has worked as a businessman. But a businessman is an expert on business. If we needed an expert on the economy to be the President, shouldn't we be looking for.... an economist?"

A businessman has practical experiences working with the economy - as a businessman has to respond successfully to market forces or go bankrupt. Think of it as the difference between theory and practice. An economist understands how the market functions in theory but might not necessarily be able to use that knowledge effectively. A good businessman understands how it works in practice, even if they don't necessarily understand the theory behind it.

"3. If I was a conservative, and I wanted someone who would enact conservative change, I would want someone who had the experience and history of enacting conservative change."

What do conservatives believe? A conservative believes that the constitution comes first. In short, they are opposed to change that is contrary to the constitution, and supportive of change that undoes things that are contrary to the constitution.

The constitution speaks in favor of limited government, ergo a conservative is always going to be suspicious of politicians, especially politics as a profession. Which is why you get conservatives arguing for those with experience outside of the government.

"what they did when they were in public office, and not how they lived their  personal lives."

That's because you're a liberal. A conservative bundles those all together. To a conservative, personal lives are relevant because someone who manages small things well, is more trustworthy with larger things. See, a conservative doesn't distinguish between 'personal life' and 'life in office;.

Quote
But if the change he is making is conservative, then he is a conservative.

By definition a conservative politician is working against his own occupation, because if you believe that less government is best, then you'll be working to put yourself out of a job.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 03, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
Government, unlike a business, is not a profit-and-loss operation.

Yes, public workers create no profits and therefore should not be granted union representation unless their occupation is inherently dangerous (What are the primary purposes of a union? A) Ensure the workers gain a reasonable degree of the profits they help create and/or B) Ensure the safety of workers).

Quote
War, diplomacy, education, public works projects, welfare/relief, and the administration of justice are not done for profit of the government.  Does anyone believe that the government works best if it maximizes tax revenues and minimizes services to the public to get maximal surpluses?

The federal government works if it ensures national defense, law/order, and sound infrastructure that cannot be effectively served by markets (assuming it achieves these objectives without defaulting, of course). The goal is to minimize costs (which implies minimizing taxes) while achieving the aforementioned mandate.

Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come. A lot of people in Washington, even many on the right-wing, do not get it. We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

The bottom-line: Washington needs a reformation, and a career politician is not going to deliver it. The two best post-WW II presidents had most of their career/life experiences outside of politics (i.e., Eisenhower/military and Reagan/entertainment).


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 03, 2012, 07:51:36 PM
No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services. Unfortunately since FDR we've had the mentality on the left about how having government services is important but it has been overstated in order to make people dependent on the democratic party. Obama doesn't understand economic, have a clue how supply and demand works, and has never held a job in his life. Now he wants to tell my doctor what's what? This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't treat our government and budget like a business. If a business goes under from bad decision making, so should the ruling class or in this case democrats.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: pbrower2a on March 04, 2012, 03:53:02 PM

... (P)ublic workers create no profits and therefore should not be granted union representation unless their occupation is inherently dangerous (What are the primary purposes of a union? A) Ensure the workers gain a reasonable degree of the profits they help create and/or B) Ensure the safety of workers).


... and protect the rights of workers from abuse and exploitation. The State can exploit workers (think of Commie regimes that have "socialism without social justice"!)

Teachers can need unions if teachers are under pressure to do partisan politics, praise a certain group of elected officials, or give special breaks to the children of well-connected parents. I once heard one student threaten me that her mother as a school-board member would ensure that I never taught again if I referred that student to the principal. I stood my ground. (By the way -- if I were on the school board I would not tolerate such behavior from one of my kids). Teachers really shouldn't wear campaign buttons in the classroom and should not find administrators squeezing them for campaign donations or to work for partisan campaigns.



Quote
The federal government works if it ensures national defense, law/order, and sound infrastructure that cannot be effectively served by markets (assuming it achieves these objectives without defaulting, of course). The goal is to minimize costs (which implies minimizing taxes) while achieving the aforementioned mandate.

I know ways in which to cut costs -- like using unpaid labor (conscripted soldiers) on construction projects, cutting corners in engineering, underfunding any government operation. 

Quote
Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come. A lot of people in Washington, even many on the right-wing, do not get it. We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

Wars and depressions bloat budget deficits as effectively as any welfare measures. But what does regulatory relief have to do with cutting the cost of government? Regulatory relief contributed to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico... and huge federal costs.

Quote
The bottom-line: Washington needs a reformation, and a career politician is not going to deliver it. The two best post-WW II presidents had most of their career/life experiences outside of politics (i.e., Eisenhower/military and Reagan/entertainment).

Eisenhower? One of his functions as a senior officer was to lobby Congress for military preparedness during the tough 1930s when America had other concerns. Reagan had been Governor of California, a very responsible position. Reagan did much advocacy for conservative causes before he was Governor.

Truman was a fine President but he was a failure as a retailer... and he established an oil company that took off after he sold out.

Most of the effective top politicians are attorneys -- probably because attorneys are intellectual generalists who can do everything but medicine, engineering, scientific research, and handling money. Who would do better? We have plenty of smart people -- college professors, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, engineers, accountants, pharmacists -- but they all usually lack something.

Elective politics really is a Darwinian method for winnowing out cranks, liars, crooks, and fools.

 


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 04, 2012, 03:57:56 PM
Have you seen public sector pensions? They are exorbitant and funded by taxpayers who have no hope of seeing similar plans. How is this fair?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 04, 2012, 04:25:46 PM
Have you seen public sector pensions? They are exorbitant and funded by taxpayers who have no hope of seeing similar plans. How is this fair?

Because the idea was that public service was a trade-off from private sector work-a lower salary, but higher benefits and more job security. It attracted people who believed in the mission of the public sector (something that conservatives, btw, don't really believe in), didn't only care about making money, and was meant to retain that talent.

For a long time, it was successful. But, for a variety of complex reasons, the public sector has been the victim of a successful attack from free-market demagogues in the private sector, who have promised to make the public sector more "efficient" and "responsive to the people", but have really just made the government the instrument of the biggest players in the private sector.

The real question is: why is the private sector becoming so abysmal? Why subject the public interest to the whims of the free market? That's always been a horrible idea, and remains so to this day.




Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 04, 2012, 04:37:22 PM
Quote
Because the idea was that public service was a trade-off from private sector work-a lower salary

Public sector now makes much more on average than the private sector, before even taking benefits into account.


Quote
It attracted people who believed in the mission of the public sector (something that conservatives, btw, don't really believe in), didn't only care about making money, and was meant to retain that talent.

Again, how is it fair to tax people who are less well off than you to pay for your pension benefits? I'm seeing things like pensions requiring a significantly lower proportion of payment than in the private sector. Essentially, the folks that are working scraping together a living are payinig for the pensions of private sector workers who make much more than them.

Quote
For a long time, it was successful. But, for a variety of complex reasons, the public sector has been the victim of a successful attack from free-market demagogues in the private sector, who have promised to make the public sector more "efficient" and "responsive to the people", but have really just made the government the instrument of the biggest players in the private sector.

There's simply no other way - the money is gone, and has been spent.

Quote
The real question is: why is the private sector becoming so abysmal? Why subject the public interest to the whims of the free market? That's always been a horrible idea, and remains so to this day.

There's no money for the public sector anymore. They can jack up taxes all they want - they aren't going to fund their massive pension obligations.

You do realize that the public sector assumes a 7 percent yearly return just to keep level with the benefits they already pay out?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: anvi on March 04, 2012, 04:51:37 PM
A good businessperson is not necessarily a good economist--they may be but they are not necessarily so.  Businesspeople, even those in investment, don't necessarily pay much attention to the growth of the economy as a whole.  They also tend to cut labor costs to a minimum of what is needed so as to yield good productivity and maximized profits.  Furthermore, though massive debts are certainly bad for government and the economy as a whole, the government is not supposed to be a for-profit business.  The rhetoric of businesspeople being better than others as presidents derives from the wish on the part of those in favor of this that government be run to the advantage of business, not that government be run like a business.  There are certainly some advantages to this, but, if that is the exclusive interest of a president, many things will get missed that shouldn't be.    


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 04, 2012, 05:50:47 PM
Herbert Hoover had a lot of experience in the private sector, too-certainly much more relevant experience to the Presidency than Romney. He also had much more technical expertise than just about anybody that's ever run for President.

Look at how his Presidency turned out.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: LastVoter on March 04, 2012, 05:59:05 PM
Government, unlike a business, is not a profit-and-loss operation.

Yes, public workers create no profits and therefore should not be granted union representation unless their occupation is inherently dangerous (What are the primary purposes of a union? A) Ensure the workers gain a reasonable degree of the profits they help create and/or B) Ensure the safety of workers).

Quote
War, diplomacy, education, public works projects, welfare/relief, and the administration of justice are not done for profit of the government.  Does anyone believe that the government works best if it maximizes tax revenues and minimizes services to the public to get maximal surpluses?

The federal government works if it ensures national defense, law/order, and sound infrastructure that cannot be effectively served by markets (assuming it achieves these objectives without defaulting, of course). The goal is to minimize costs (which implies minimizing taxes) while achieving the aforementioned mandate.

Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come. A lot of people in Washington, even many on the right-wing, do not get it. We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

The bottom-line: Washington needs a reformation, and a career politician is not going to deliver it. The two best post-WW II presidents had most of their career/life experiences outside of politics (i.e., Eisenhower/military and Reagan/entertainment).
The primary purpose of the unions is to give workers what they deserve.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 04, 2012, 06:08:24 PM
No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services. Unfortunately since FDR we've had the mentality on the left about how having government services is important but it has been overstated in order to make people dependent on the democratic party. Obama doesn't understand economic, have a clue how supply and demand works, and has never held a job in his life. Now he wants to tell my doctor what's what? This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't treat our government and budget like a business. If a business goes under from bad decision making, so should the ruling class or in this case democrats.

A state isn't a business.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: © tweed on March 04, 2012, 06:10:55 PM
No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services. Unfortunately since FDR we've had the mentality on the left about how having government services is important but it has been overstated in order to make people dependent on the democratic party. Obama doesn't understand economic, have a clue how supply and demand works, and has never held a job in his life. Now he wants to tell my doctor what's what? This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't treat our government and budget like a business. If a business goes under from bad decision making, so should the ruling class or in this case democrats.

A state isn't a business.

here's your crash course in neoliberal ideology.  expanding the breadth of market values.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: batmacumba on March 04, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services. Unfortunately since FDR we've had the mentality on the left about how having government services is important but it has been overstated in order to make people dependent on the democratic party. Obama doesn't understand economic, have a clue how supply and demand works, and has never held a job in his life. Now he wants to tell my doctor what's what? This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't treat our government and budget like a business. If a business goes under from bad decision making, so should the ruling class or in this case democrats.

When a business cracks, it's usually closed and dug the owner onto debts; or else someone buy it for a cheap amount.  This seems to me pretty similar to what happened in 2008.
That's just one of the myriad of reasons government should not be managed like business. The main reality of business is throwing yourself into risk and battle to not make wrong moves nor be affected by a contingency problem, or you're doomed. I really can't believe that people wants this to actually happen to their country.

BTW, good luck in not selling it to China.

Have you seen public sector pensions? They are exorbitant and funded by taxpayers who have no hope of seeing similar plans. How is this fair?

Shouldn't the unfair part be the low private sector pensions, rather than the ones on public sector?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 04, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.


The arguement is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competativeness and job creation.

2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

No one is saying that he will litterally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and it's economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Conservatism has historically prefered outsiders or atleast people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are prefered to Senators and businessmen are prefered to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a caolition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, inspite of his record of what he did.

It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.

President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 04, 2012, 10:38:03 PM
Quote
Shouldn't the unfair part be the low private sector pensions, rather than the ones on public sector

Taxing the public to provide pensions for people who are wealthier than the median isn't just a regressive tax, it's exactly the same as the tithes that used to be paid.

It's really no difference. The peasants farm the land and the nobles benefit.

They should get the same deal as private folks do - fund your pension 50 percent and the government kicks in the other half.

Instead, we're seeing that they don't have to fund their pensions, or even kick in 5 percent.

I do the exact same thing as a teacher - but I have to pay taxes so that other teachers who make more than I do get their pensions. Again - this is not fair. And I'm really tired of getting a chunk out of my paycheck going to these follks, when I could really use that money to save up for my own retirement.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 04, 2012, 11:24:52 PM

... (P)ublic workers create no profits and therefore should not be granted union representation unless their occupation is inherently dangerous (What are the primary purposes of a union? A) Ensure the workers gain a reasonable degree of the profits they help create and/or B) Ensure the safety of workers).


... and protect the rights of workers from abuse and exploitation. The State can exploit workers (think of Commie regimes that have "socialism without social justice"!)

And what does this have to do with ensuring public union workers get pay raises that outpace inflation? Furthermore, I have never heard of a state abusing and exploiting public workers. Where did such incidents occur in the United States before public unions existed?

The fact of the matter is that public workers create zero profits and therefore there is no reason for them to have union representation unless their job is inherently dangerous (e.g., policemen and firemen). If a public worker is unhappy with their job, they can find one somewhere else.

We're increasingly becoming a nation of tax producers and tax consumers. The tax producers are growing increasingly sick of public workers taking them to the shed year after year.

Quote
Teachers can need unions if teachers are under pressure to do partisan politics, praise a certain group of elected officials, or give special breaks to the children of well-connected parents. I once heard one student threaten me that her mother as a school-board member would ensure that I never taught again if I referred that student to the principal. I stood my ground. (By the way -- if I were on the school board I would not tolerate such behavior from one of my kids). Teachers really shouldn't wear campaign buttons in the classroom and should not find administrators squeezing them for campaign donations or to work for partisan campaigns.

I've always thought a student gets sent to the principal's office, and then the principal deals with the student as they see fit, which may mean either bringing in the parent(s) or not.

Quote
I know ways in which to cut costs -- like using unpaid labor (conscripted soldiers) on construction projects, cutting corners in engineering, underfunding any government operation.  

Hello, 1972. We do not have conscripted soldiers anymore.

Underfunding a government engineering operation? Go look into the Big Dig of Boston if you want real life examples of government engineering operations.

There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. Underfunding and over-funding both belong in the latter category.

Quote
Wars and depressions bloat budget deficits as effectively as any welfare measures. But what does regulatory relief have to do with cutting the cost of government? Regulatory relief contributed to the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico... and huge federal costs.

If a regulation cripples competitiveness, with high enforcement costs, cutting it has a lot to do with making government, and our economy, more efficient.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 04, 2012, 11:29:19 PM
Herbert Hoover had a lot of experience in the private sector, too-certainly much more relevant experience to the Presidency than Romney. He also had much more technical expertise than just about anybody that's ever run for President.

Look at how his Presidency turned out.

Herbert Hoover cannot be fully blamed for the actions of the Federal Reserve at the time.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 04, 2012, 11:32:36 PM
Government, unlike a business, is not a profit-and-loss operation.

Yes, public workers create no profits and therefore should not be granted union representation unless their occupation is inherently dangerous (What are the primary purposes of a union? A) Ensure the workers gain a reasonable degree of the profits they help create and/or B) Ensure the safety of workers).

Quote
War, diplomacy, education, public works projects, welfare/relief, and the administration of justice are not done for profit of the government.  Does anyone believe that the government works best if it maximizes tax revenues and minimizes services to the public to get maximal surpluses?

The federal government works if it ensures national defense, law/order, and sound infrastructure that cannot be effectively served by markets (assuming it achieves these objectives without defaulting, of course). The goal is to minimize costs (which implies minimizing taxes) while achieving the aforementioned mandate.

Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come. A lot of people in Washington, even many on the right-wing, do not get it. We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

The bottom-line: Washington needs a reformation, and a career politician is not going to deliver it. The two best post-WW II presidents had most of their career/life experiences outside of politics (i.e., Eisenhower/military and Reagan/entertainment).
The primary purpose of the unions is to give workers what they deserve.

Yes, which is a safe working environment and a fair share of the profits they help create. Public workers create no profits. They only consume taxes. They deserve a safe working environment and a wage/salary that their job would garner in the private sector, and not a penny more.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 04, 2012, 11:34:31 PM
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.


The arguement is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competativeness and job creation.

2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

No one is saying that he will litterally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and it's economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Conservatism has historically prefered outsiders or atleast people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are prefered to Senators and businessmen are prefered to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a caolition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, inspite of his record of what he did.

It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.

President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.

This is a really good post.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: pbrower2a on March 05, 2012, 09:14:53 AM
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.

Proprietors, or at the least shareholders, own a business. Businesses (except perhaps unions if one considers them businesses) are not set up for the welfare of employees, taxing authorities, creditors, suppliers, or customers. Any good done for these entities is coincidence or a necessary deal with outsiders.

Quote
The argument is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competitiveness and job creation.

Job creation is not a primary concern of employers. If a corporation can increase productivity by reducing its staff it will, as many profitable companies have done even before the financial collapse. Note well that giant corporations frequently hire lobbyists to make such a claim... and of course control the politicians that the giant entity sponsored to electoral success through campaign contributions.

But avoid using the buzzword "competitiveness" when "profitability" is the reality. It may be good for a corporation that it gets outright subsidies, underpays and overworks workers, gets tax burdens shifted to everyone else, gets regulatory relief that might lead to some ecological  disaster or life-taking catastrophe for which the government pays, or even gets a war for profit or control of resources and markets. Any good that comes from capitalism is a byproduct of the profit motive even if the profit comes from meeting human needs and desires.

Quote
2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

Government can create the money supply. If you try to do so you face a long prison term. A government can of course print money to the extent of private productivity without inflation. Business (except in banks through fractional reserves) cannot create money.

That is not to say that government needs to show economy and efficiency.

Quote
No one is saying that he will literally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and its economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Don't be so sure. A CEO of a defense contractor has a powerful incentive to bleed the government on behalf of his good buddies at the defense contractor. Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), boss of a for-profit network of medical clinics before being elected Governor, has proved wildly unpopular in Florida. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan, another entrepreneur-turned-Governor, gets approvals far below average. The ability to turn on a dime from loyalty to stockholders or one's own gain to public service is not easy.  Harshness in administrating a for-profit entity that people can quit if they dislike (if one is an oil-field geologist and dislikes Exxon-Mobil one might get a chance at BP)... but a country? It is difficult to uproot oneself even from Syria today. 

I can hardly see an executive suite as anything other than a haven for pathological narcissists, if not high-functioning sociopaths. Corporate executives are hired to enforce the desires of elites who see working people as livestock at best and vermin at worst -- and serving those interests isn't for people of charity and decency.  Recall Enron Corporation as an extreme example... and then some of the predatory lenders and corrupt rating agencies that foisted an economic disaster that threatened the severity of the three-year meltdown that followed the Crash of 1929. 

Quote
Conservatism has historically preferred outsiders or at least people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are preferred to Senators and businessmen are preferred to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a coalition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, in spite of his record of what he did.

You are right about the desire of the Right for term limits. Term limits have their problems -- most obviously they work as much against a competent and effective legislator as opposed to an incompetent or even corrupt legislator. They ensure a more rapid turnover of politicians -- and give more power to unelected lobbyists responsible only to their paymasters. (Government by lobbyists is a novel form of dictatorship!) They force perhaps a revolving door between government, business, and pressure groups. They can also force politicians with strong aspirations for high office to run for offices for which they need more preparation to do well, which is not good for the political process. A four-term Congressional Representative is, ceteris paribus,  more likely to be a more effective Senator than a two-term Representative. 
 
 The line between legislating and governing isn't so clear as it may seem to you.  Mayors and Governors have become Senators, Representatives have become Governors, and city-councilmen have often become Mayors. Knowing what the People want and being able to achieve it within a legislature is a desirable trait in a mayor, Governor, or President.
 

Quote
It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.


...Conservative interests -- like cheap labor and tough law enforcement -- can themselves contradict. Conservatives ordinarily want an abundant supply of cheap, dependent, expendable, but competent labor. Greater profits can be made by underpaying workers because they are in no position in which to say no (don't kid yourself -- that is one of the objectives of "Right-to-Work" legislation). But cheap labor is a hardship for those who have no alternative -- and low wages imply hardships to people (children) who have no culpability in the system.

Note well: in a democracy, everything -- including stewardship of the economy -- is a legitimate concern of the elected leadership. It is not enough to say that efficiency is everything; if that efficiency comes with cruelty then the objectives are suspect.  Workers have a right to concern themselves with issues of economic equity that some conservatives consider outside the realm of public debate and action. If Big Business could get away with it America would quickly revert to the norm of the Gilded Age for industrial workers -- kids in the workforce by age 10, 70 hours as the workweek, workers wrecked by 35 and dead by 40.

Quote
President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.

We now get to judge him on his results, and what he was before he was President no longer matters except as description. It would not matter now if the President did as he does after having spent most of his life as a long-haul trucker. We legitimately judge politicians on their results.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 05, 2012, 11:43:36 AM
Quote
Proprietors, or at the least shareholders, own a business. Businesses (except perhaps unions if one considers them businesses) are not set up for the welfare of employees, taxing authorities, creditors, suppliers, or customers. Any good done for these entities is coincidence or a necessary deal with outsiders.

Which is why unions fight tooth and nail agaisnt the unionization of their own employees. Simple principle, if Unionization were for the benefits of the worker, then the union representatives would unionize themselves. It's clearly not beneficial to the worker, but it is beneficial to the unions - which is why the Unions try to make it so that the rank and file have no say.

This is why the unions are attacking governor Walker, for severing the automatic paycheck deductions for public union members. They know that if the rank and file actually sees the money in their pocket, that they are going to keep the money.

Quote
Job creation is not a primary concern of employers. If a corporation can increase productivity by reducing its staff it will, as many profitable companies have done even before the financial collapse. Note well that giant corporations frequently hire lobbyists to make such a claim... and of course control the politicians that the giant entity sponsored to electoral success through campaign contributions.

The concept of firing people to keep the bottom line, and keeping only productive workers is anathema to government bureaucracy. This is why people want to change the system they are fed up paying for the bureaucrats.

Quote
But avoid using the buzzword "competitiveness" when "profitability" is the reality.

Competitiveness is profitability - competitive businesses make a profit where the free market works.

Quote
It may be good for a corporation that it gets outright subsidies, underpays and overworks workers, gets tax burdens shifted to everyone else, gets regulatory relief that might lead to some ecological  disaster or life-taking catastrophe for which the government pays, or even gets a war for profit or control of resources and markets. Any good that comes from capitalism is a byproduct of the profit motive even if the profit comes from meeting human needs and desires.

Then the solution is to reduce the size of the government so that the benefit accrued by essentially bribing government officials is reduced. The problem isn't the business, but the red tape created by the government which inhibits competition. I've seen it in the businesses that I work for - you want to get any actual work done, you have to spend about 50 percent of your time negotiating with the bureaucrats. It's really frustrating.

Quote
Government can create the money supply.

Think of it as conservation of money. Value cannot be created or destroyed - merely changed.

They can increase the money supply by adding zeros, but they cannot increase the value of the currency. Any increase in the money supply will provoke the inverse force of inflation to keep the value at exactly the same as it was.

Inflation is good for the debtors, and bad for the creditors, which is why the government likes it. It means that the money it used to borrow stuff from before is worth less than the money they have now.

Deflation on the other hand is the enemy for governments, because it rewards thrift, economy, and destroys debtors. This is why the governments panicked when gas prices dropped 50 percent. I remember that - those were fun times. My bills were slashed in half! It was great!

But alas, it wasn't to be and they screwed us all by 'saving' the debtors with the thrifty. Now its' 2012, 4 years later and we're still suffering even worse now because what was held from before is now gone.

Quote
Don't be so sure. A CEO of a defense contractor

As opposed to the current community organiser who has a powerful incentive to reward his croneys (look at the Czars?)

Heck if it's between a CEO and Obama, I know who I'm choosing. Obama has been great - if you happen to be on the gravy train. Otherwise you're screwed.

Quote
The ability to turn on a dime from loyalty to stockholders or one's own gain to public service is not easy.

Oh, which is why Granholm was ridiculed as an objective failure. Which is why the leadership of Detroit has resulted in the halving of the population of the city?

I don't think you're being objective here. Michigan has had terrible leadership, and Detroit has been even worse. At least the CEO and businessman has Michigan running on a fiscally sound basis that will pay dividends in the future.

Quote
Harshness in administrating a for-profit entity that people can quit if they dislike (if one is an oil-field geologist and dislikes Exxon-Mobil one might get a chance at BP)... but a country? It is difficult to uproot oneself even from Syria today.

Well, the problem is that austerity is now inevitable, thanks to government largesse. It didn't have to be that way, but because Obama's spent all the seed corn, now the government has to get back on a sound fiscal footing. The sooner they do so, the easier it will be to turn back.

Quote
who see working people as livestock at best and vermin at worst

Wasn't it Obama who made the comment about gun owners and Christians as 'bitter clingers'. Heck, I know the administration sees Catholics as vermin too - hence their attacks on Dolan and the Catholic church in America.

I see no evidence for your statement that CEO's see working people as livestock. I see plenty that the state and the bureaucrats do.

Quote
Recall Enron Corporation as an extreme example... and then some of the predatory lenders and corrupt rating agencies

Guys like with Fanny and Freddy? Last I checked that's where the Obama stash has gone - to prop up his banker friends. That's why folks like Barney Franks are still in congress and not in jail.

You're right, but you're aiming at the wrong folks. This administration is not interested in punishing any of those responsible for the lending - it's protecting them because the Obama administration has been part of this from day one.

Quote
they work as much against a competent and effective legislator

Do you think Jefferson endorsed one making a career of state business? No. All of them had their own property, their own responsibilities both before and after they left office. Term limits act as a break on those who would exploit the people for their own gain, and act as a check on the power of congress.

This is why every edition of congress opposes term limits because it's not in their best interest. Which is why we get people who serve in congress for 60+ years.

Quote
They ensure a more rapid turnover of politicians

Which is a good thing.

Quote
and give more power to unelected lobbyists

Nonsense, if the incumbant cannot run, that gives the people more not less say

Quote
A four-term Congressional Representative is, ceteris paribus,  more likely to be a more effective Senator than a two-term Representative.

Heh, not so. Only if you assume what you are trying to prove. One can accomplish quite a bit as a two-term representative. Look at Polk who did in one term more than most presidents do in two.
 
Quote
Conservatives ordinarily want an abundant supply of cheap, dependent, expendable, but competent labor.

Most conservatives are not employers. Most conservatives are employees.

What we want is:

A decent job where we can earn enough to support our families without relying on government assistance.

Quote
Greater profits can be made by underpaying workers because they are in no position in which to say no (don't kid yourself -- that is one of the objectives of "Right-to-Work" legislation).

Right to work legislation, restores the constitutional relationship between we the people and the state. A person should not have to get permission from a union to begin employment. A person should be able to seek whatever employment they wish, and stay employed without having to pay a bounty to a union.

States with right to work are doing much better in this recession than states with unions, because unions are killing the states they are in. A dirty little secret is that businesses are constrained by market forces on labor demand. They cannot drop their pay because they will not get the workers that they need.

The other dirty secret is the biggest beneficiaries of killing right to work laws, are the public union employees who get multiples of the minimum wage. In effect, they are voting for their own benefits. But who cuts their checks - the same people who are trying to get jobs but can't. So the public unions are cutting their own throats by opposition to right to work laws.

This is why Wisconsin did not have to lay off teachers - they were able to cut their massive costs sufficiently so that they could retain the ones they had. The unions were happy to screw the low level teachers (folks like me), so that the ones with seniority could keep their benefits. Who cares about the future so long as you get yours then. Rather then firing the ones who were costing the most, they would fire all the cheap and young ones.

Quote
But cheap labor is a hardship for those who have no alternative -- and low wages imply hardships to people (children) who have no culpability in the system.

Low wages >>> No wages.

Quote
If Big Business could get away with it America would quickly revert to the norm of the Gilded Age for industrial workers -- kids in the workforce by age 10, 70 hours as the workweek, workers wrecked by 35 and dead by 40.

Not so. Look at the dirty little secret about worker constraints. There are not enough skilled workers in America. America is starving for workers right now, but can't get them because of the red tape walls that government throws up to prevent them from doing so.

Quote
We legitimately judge politicians on their results

Right now, the workforce is the same size it was in 1983.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 05, 2012, 12:33:11 PM
The record of businessmen in politics is less than entirely... er... well, it's not very good. The skill set does not seem to translate very well. One the best examples being this man. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Davies_(businessman))


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 05, 2012, 12:52:36 PM
I think the disconnect here is that what you want with politics and politicians is essentially two-fold - you want them to implement your preferred policies. That is, you want them both to pursue the right policies and also be able to implement them.

The latter is a political skill and is why political experience matters. You know that someone like LBJ is able to get things done whereas an outsider (Jimmy Carter, for example) might often be unable to.

The first one is different. Here you might have reason to distrust career politicians. The very term suggests that such people don't share your values precisely because they don't really have any. And their lack of experience with how the world works outside of politics might make them to blind to the problems society faces.

That doesn't really speak well for Romney anyway though.

Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 05, 2012, 03:56:53 PM
No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services. Unfortunately since FDR we've had the mentality on the left about how having government services is important but it has been overstated in order to make people dependent on the democratic party. Obama doesn't understand economic, have a clue how supply and demand works, and has never held a job in his life. Now he wants to tell my doctor what's what? This is the kind of thing that happens when you don't treat our government and budget like a business. If a business goes under from bad decision making, so should the ruling class or in this case democrats.

When a business cracks, it's usually closed and dug the owner onto debts; or else someone buy it for a cheap amount.  This seems to me pretty similar to what happened in 2008.
That's just one of the myriad of reasons government should not be managed like business. The main reality of business is throwing yourself into risk and battle to not make wrong moves nor be affected by a contingency problem, or you're doomed. I really can't believe that people wants this to actually happen to their country.

BTW, good luck in not selling it to China.

Have you seen public sector pensions? They are exorbitant and funded by taxpayers who have no hope of seeing similar plans. How is this fair?

Shouldn't the unfair part be the low private sector pensions, rather than the ones on public sector?

Yes and successful businesses don't crash or go under. Ok you got me, don't run our country like a business, run it like a successful business. Run it like McDonalds rather than General Motors. The right kind of leaders will have to get into the White House who have this experience and know how to cut costs and save money. I know it's hard to accept that free hand outs won't be available but it's honestly the only way to govern a nation and not be in debt. Ask Greece!


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Insula Dei on March 05, 2012, 04:37:23 PM
Romney and his supporters don't really throw around his supposed business experience to reinforce his credentials but to show that he understands the lingo and the ethos of the American Right. It's less about suggesting some form of non-ideological competence, than about showcasing a very ideological loyalty to a set of ideals and rhetorical devices that are the lifeblood of that weird creature that is American Conservativism (,and a set that incidentally also likes to pretend to be non-ideological).

Just my analysis, fwiw.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 05, 2012, 06:09:25 PM
Quote
Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

I strongly suspect that the disagreement is rooted in economics. You reject what conservatives believe in economics, which is why you don't understand this point.

I could of course be wrong.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: batmacumba on March 05, 2012, 06:16:43 PM
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.

No because outside of the party, there is the real world where not everything is based on or revolves around government. I'm sick of hearing how government experience is a plus. Run the government and the country like a successful business and we'll do fine. Forget the leftwing talking points and just balance the budget and cut taxes even if it means cutting a few services.

BTW, if I didn't know how to run a business, I wouldn't be able to wright right now, once I'm on a cafe, write on phones sucks and iPads are really expensive here.
And, once I am a nice and altruist person and once the girl went to the ladie's room, I'll give you folks some tips on business management which are pretty basic on contemporary administration.
First, no one run a business based on budget primarily, unless you're going bad and the economic environment is working against you at the same time. Even then, you gotta prepare the B plan soon, since such a strategy doesn't work for long.
Public servants on the administrative area knows about this things very well, It's called Strategic Management. And, sure, some aspects can be shared by both sectors, which are usually done. One of the most successful and studied cases is, indeed, their application on the American public service during Clinton administration. Who, BTW, is a lawyer by profession. And succeeded an entrepreneur with a loooong business family tradition...

Anyway, we've already got our share of businessman on chargehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Collor_de_Mello), here, and I really don't want anything similar to that crap again.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 05, 2012, 07:41:14 PM
Quote
Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

I strongly suspect that the disagreement is rooted in economics. You reject what conservatives believe in economics, which is why you don't understand this point.

I could of course be wrong.

Gustaf is well known in these parts as a far-left hack, yes.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 07:46:42 PM
I think the disconnect here is that what you want with politics and politicians is essentially two-fold - you want them to implement your preferred policies. That is, you want them both to pursue the right policies and also be able to implement them.

The latter is a political skill and is why political experience matters. You know that someone like LBJ is able to get things done whereas an outsider (Jimmy Carter, for example) might often be unable to.

The first one is different. Here you might have reason to distrust career politicians. The very term suggests that such people don't share your values precisely because they don't really have any. And their lack of experience with how the world works outside of politics might make them to blind to the problems society faces.

That doesn't really speak well for Romney anyway though.

Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

For one thing, I am pretty sure that Romney is just as smart in terms of "economics" as he is in "Business". I can't fathom he would do so well at Harvard Business School otherwise. Is there not significant overlap in the programs? I would imagine that one would struggle greatly had he not learned economics both before and during his studies there.

Second of all Romney is not just any business person. He is a former venture capitalist with experiences in many different companies. And you can dig deep and find ways in which he screwed them over or not. But at the end of the day, he did reorganized these companies for a purpose, however "unfair" one can characterize it. In the process, he experienced the effects of government policies directly. Experienced how it affected the decisions either directly or indirectly from actions or inactions of the government. That experience in conjunction with his previous experience as a Governor, and yes knowledge of economics in general, which I am pretty sure he has, is what makes him a good choice.

I would arge that an economics professor is just as ill suited, to run an economy. That you would seek someone with diverse experiences, is rather obvious. If Mittens was "just a business executive", you would have a point.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 07:58:41 PM
Nobody is saying that the Gov't can or should be run like a business completely. That is an exaggeration.

Proprietors, or at the least shareholders, own a business. Businesses (except perhaps unions if one considers them businesses) are not set up for the welfare of employees, taxing authorities, creditors, suppliers, or customers. Any good done for these entities is coincidence or a necessary deal with outsiders.

Are you serving any purpose by starting your reponses with the equivalent of a dicationary definition? All you do is piss people off by insulting their intelligence. ::)

Quote
The argument is that a businessman

1. Understands the impact of government policies on job creation because he deals with it directly. He has to pay the taxes when raised, comply with the new regulations and cope with the gov'ts failure to stop a country from dumping. He therefore can enact policies tailored to maxmising competitiveness and job creation.

Job creation is not a primary concern of employers. If a corporation can increase productivity by reducing its staff it will, as many profitable companies have done even before the financial collapse. Note well that giant corporations frequently hire lobbyists to make such a claim... and of course control the politicians that the giant entity sponsored to electoral success through campaign contributions.

But avoid using the buzzword "competitiveness" when "profitability" is the reality. It may be good for a corporation that it gets outright subsidies, underpays and overworks workers, gets tax burdens shifted to everyone else, gets regulatory relief that might lead to some ecological  disaster or life-taking catastrophe for which the government pays, or even gets a war for profit or control of resources and markets. Any good that comes from capitalism is a byproduct of the profit motive even if the profit comes from meeting human needs and desires.

This is the same thing you said in the first part, only with a mixture of far left cynnicism and anti-business biases mixed in with it.

The hope would be, that one would abandon their personal parochial concerns and serve the interests of the people, once in office. Of course you are in a situation where the determination of whether that has happened or not is determined by one's political slant, chances are the assessments will differ. I am pretty sure your judgement on such matters is wholly adequate based on your long and emense record of fair and unbiased analysis on political matters up to this point.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: pbrower2a on March 05, 2012, 08:02:24 PM
Quote
Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

I strongly suspect that the disagreement is rooted in economics. You reject what conservatives believe in economics, which is why you don't understand this point.

I could of course be wrong.

It is the difference between microeconomics (theory of the individual and the firm) and macroeconomic (the theory of the of economy as a whole). What is good for one person (accelerating one's savings during an economic downturn) might be a calamity for humanity as a whole if everyone did it because such would reduce total spending when consumer spending is all that can drive the economy.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 08:10:37 PM
Quote
2. Understands the need and importance of balancing a check book and that money doesn't grow on trees. It is easy taxed, borrowed, or printed, each of which puts a cost on the private sector. He also understands the need for efficiency and getting the biggest bang for the buck. Thus he can pursue policies that spend money the most effectively and is thus able to reduce the deficit.

Government can create the money supply. If you try to do so you face a long prison term. A government can of course print money to the extent of private productivity without inflation. Business (except in banks through fractional reserves) cannot create money.

That is not to say that government needs to show economy and efficiency.

Did I not include the printing of money? Ah, yes I did, it appears. That has a limit, which you acknowlege in your post, beyond which there is a cost. It is not unlimited. Therefore there is a great case to be made that the government should set priorities and do what it wants to as efficiently as possible.

Quote
No one is saying that he will literally govern as a CEO. He will govern as a President of the United States. But as a former CEO he has this experience in dealing with the gov't and its economic polices first hand and is thus best able to create an environment for jobs and to balance the budget.

Don't be so sure. A CEO of a defense contractor has a powerful incentive to bleed the government on behalf of his good buddies at the defense contractor. Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), boss of a for-profit network of medical clinics before being elected Governor, has proved wildly unpopular in Florida. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan, another entrepreneur-turned-Governor, gets approvals far below average. The ability to turn on a dime from loyalty to stockholders or one's own gain to public service is not easy.  Harshness in administrating a for-profit entity that people can quit if they dislike (if one is an oil-field geologist and dislikes Exxon-Mobil one might get a chance at BP)... but a country? It is difficult to uproot oneself even from Syria today.  

I can hardly see an executive suite as anything other than a haven for pathological narcissists, if not high-functioning sociopaths. Corporate executives are hired to enforce the desires of elites who see working people as livestock at best and vermin at worst -- and serving those interests isn't for people of charity and decency.  Recall Enron Corporation as an extreme example... and then some of the predatory lenders and corrupt rating agencies that foisted an economic disaster that threatened the severity of the three-year meltdown that followed the Crash of 1929.

More bias it appears. Again if we were talking about a defense contractor, then one would only vote for them on the assumption that they abandon their personal gain for the sake of the country, as I discussed earlier.

Rick Scott is a horrible politician. Snyder has some potential and his polls seem to be slowly recovering. He isn't a politician by trade, either. Yes, they lack political skills and had to make tough policy choices that were hard for people to accept. Therefore, those with limited political skills will be in a worse position then say an adept politico like Cuomo, or even someone like Scott Walker or Tom Corbett.

The rest of this section of your post is just trash.



Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 05, 2012, 08:18:13 PM
Quote
Conservatism has historically preferred outsiders or at least people who can claim to be outsiders. Term Limits are much more popular amongst conservatives then liberals and this is why Governors are preferred to Senators and businessmen are preferred to government officials. This desire is what hampered McCain's 2000 bid. He got the moderates, but he could never unify a coalition of "outsiders" because he was a Senator, in spite of his record of what he did.

You are right about the desire of the Right for term limits. Term limits have their problems -- most obviously they work as much against a competent and effective legislator as opposed to an incompetent or even corrupt legislator. They ensure a more rapid turnover of politicians -- and give more power to unelected lobbyists responsible only to their paymasters. (Government by lobbyists is a novel form of dictatorship!) They force perhaps a revolving door between government, business, and pressure groups. They can also force politicians with strong aspirations for high office to run for offices for which they need more preparation to do well, which is not good for the political process. A four-term Congressional Representative is, ceteris paribus,  more likely to be a more effective Senator than a two-term Representative.  
 
 The line between legislating and governing isn't so clear as it may seem to you.  Mayors and Governors have become Senators, Representatives have become Governors, and city-councilmen have often become Mayors. Knowing what the People want and being able to achieve it within a legislature is a desirable trait in a mayor, Governor, or President.

I am not a supporter of term limits, never said I was. You once again read to much into something and posted a bunch of crap distracting from the core issues of the topic. I never created any line between legislating and governing. I was assessing the desire of conservatives for a Washington outsider. Since you mix your personal view with your analysis all the time, I am not surprised you assume others do so as well.

Quote
It is not surprising that a liberal wouldn't understand this, but that sentiment is only more demanding now then it was then. Because of actions that Bush took on immigration, bailouts and so forth that completely set the base aflame with anger at the establishment and Washington. Thus you had Romney's initial rise to the top in IA and NH in 2007, followed by the rise of Mike Huckabee.


...Conservative interests -- like cheap labor and tough law enforcement -- can themselves contradict. Conservatives ordinarily want an abundant supply of cheap, dependent, expendable, but competent labor. Greater profits can be made by underpaying workers because they are in no position in which to say no (don't kid yourself -- that is one of the objectives of "Right-to-Work" legislation). But cheap labor is a hardship for those who have no alternative -- and low wages imply hardships to people (children) who have no culpability in the system.

Note well: in a democracy, everything -- including stewardship of the economy -- is a legitimate concern of the elected leadership. It is not enough to say that efficiency is everything; if that efficiency comes with cruelty then the objectives are suspect.  Workers have a right to concern themselves with issues of economic equity that some conservatives consider outside the realm of public debate and action. If Big Business could get away with it America would quickly revert to the norm of the Gilded Age for industrial workers -- kids in the workforce by age 10, 70 hours as the workweek, workers wrecked by 35 and dead by 40.

How did you get that out of an explanation as to why the GOP base hate Washington? More exaggerations of conservative positons, more personal bias, more paranoia, and thus more garbage.

Quote
President Obama was a Senator for as long as Romney was Governor. Before that, he was a backbencher in the Illinois state legislature.

We now get to judge him on his results, and what he was before he was President no longer matters except as description. It would not matter now if the President did as he does after having spent most of his life as a long-haul trucker. We legitimately judge politicians on their results.

The thread is suppose defend longterm incumbents and insiders. That section intially included Lincoln short government experience as well. I removed it to reduce the length. It wasn't meant to be a hit on Obama, but a defense of "alleged" outsiders.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Politico on March 05, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
Pbrower is off his rocker this time. I mean, with all due respect, most of his comments on this page make the guy who suggested Breitbart was offed by the government look reasonable. How somebody can be so blinded by their blatant class envy, to the point of being filled with rage at the well-off, is beyond me. I mean, all I wanted in life was to be the star QB of an NFL team. Obviously we don't always get what we want. That does not make it reasonable for me to suggest nasty things about NFL QBs, hate them with all my might, suggest the NFL should be forbidden, etc.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: J. J. on March 05, 2012, 09:44:30 PM
I'm getting tired of hearing Romney talk about how he is best qualified to be President because he's not a career politician and has extensive work in the private sector. I have three problems with this.

1. I cannot think of any other profession where a limited amount of experience is seen an advantage. Romney's message is basically this: "I am best qualified to be President, because I have a limited amount of experience in government."

It's like a game of mad libs: "I am best qualified to be (occupation), because I have a limited amount of experience in (position's field)."

Being governor of a state is not limited experience.  It is a question of sole experience.  I might not go to a surgeon, even one with exceptional experience, if I was interested in a nonsurgical solution to a medical problem. (That, if fact, was what I've done.)

A successful career politician understands how government works, but he does not necessarily understand how the country works.  That is a fine quality for a senator or a state representative, or a member of city council; that is not necessarily a fine quality for someone running a country, a state, or even a city.

Both aspects are important, but it is helpful to have experience in both.


Quote
2. Romney believes that the main problem confronting the U.S. is the bad economy, and he is best qualified to fix the economy because he has worked as a businessman. But a businessman is an expert on business. If we needed an expert on the economy to be the President, shouldn't we be looking for.... an economist?

He understands what helps and hurts businesses.  An economist might understand some of the frictions on businesses, in theory, but not practically.  They may not, for example, understand the effect of expectations.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 05, 2012, 09:47:27 PM
Pbrower is off his rocker this time. I mean, with all due respect, most of his comments on this page make the guy who suggested Breitbart was offed by the government look reasonable. How somebody can be so blinded by their blatant class envy, to the point of being filled with rage at the well-off, is beyond me. I mean, all I wanted in life was to be the star QB of an NFL team. Obviously we don't always get what we want. That does not make it reasonable for me to suggest nasty things about NFL QBs, hate them with all my might, suggest the NFL should be forbidden, etc.

Class envy is a huge problem in this country and is running rampant throughout the left. If it succeeds in this election, then I don't see our nation ever being the same.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 05, 2012, 11:26:45 PM
Quote
It is the difference between microeconomics (theory of the individual and the firm) and macroeconomic (the theory of the of economy as a whole). What is good for one person (accelerating one's savings during an economic downturn) might be a calamity for humanity as a whole if everyone did it because such would reduce total spending when consumer spending is all that can drive the economy.

Valid if there is agreement on which macroeconomic theory. Unless Gustav or yourself is an Austrian, then this is not so, because I'm an Austrian myself.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 05, 2012, 11:27:40 PM
Quote
Gustaf is well known in these parts as a far-left hack, yes.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Keynesian. ;)










Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 05, 2012, 11:31:12 PM
Quote
Gustaf is well known in these parts as a far-left hack, yes.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Keynesian. ;)

Keynesian=left wing hack lol :D











Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 06, 2012, 12:24:52 PM
Gustaf? A left-wing hack?

trololol


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 06, 2012, 12:50:04 PM
I was being sarcastic. In case that wasn't obvious. And it really ought to have been. So, perhaps, it was.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 06, 2012, 12:55:28 PM
I was being sarcastic. In case that wasn't obvious. And it really ought to have been. So, perhaps, it was.

Oh, sorry. I didn't see your post there. I was responding to the right-wingers who quoted you (without your name appearing in the quotes). Sorry. :P


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 06, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
Yes, confusion is absolutely understandable in this dark twisted nightmare of a thread.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 06, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Yeah, I picked up on the sarcasm, ;)


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: TheGlobalizer on March 06, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
@Retromike - His point is that the usual suspects are not achieving conservative goals.  Classic outsider preference argument.  He's basically saying that an inexperienced conservative outsider is more likely to get a net positive outcome for the majority of people on the political right than an experienced conservative insider.  With some exceptions, he may be right.

You have to remember that conservative philosophies generally advocate smaller government and laissez faire economics.  Being good at government isn't a particular asset in such a philosophy, whereas being part of "the regulated" can be.

If I was Romney I'd be playing the "outsider with executive experience in public and private sector roles" all day long, it's his best argument.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 06, 2012, 03:41:38 PM
I think the disconnect here is that what you want with politics and politicians is essentially two-fold - you want them to implement your preferred policies. That is, you want them both to pursue the right policies and also be able to implement them.

The latter is a political skill and is why political experience matters. You know that someone like LBJ is able to get things done whereas an outsider (Jimmy Carter, for example) might often be unable to.

The first one is different. Here you might have reason to distrust career politicians. The very term suggests that such people don't share your values precisely because they don't really have any. And their lack of experience with how the world works outside of politics might make them to blind to the problems society faces.

That doesn't really speak well for Romney anyway though.

Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

For one thing, I am pretty sure that Romney is just as smart in terms of "economics" as he is in "Business". I can't fathom he would do so well at Harvard Business School otherwise. Is there not significant overlap in the programs? I would imagine that one would struggle greatly had he not learned economics both before and during his studies there.

Second of all Romney is not just any business person. He is a former venture capitalist with experiences in many different companies. And you can dig deep and find ways in which he screwed them over or not. But at the end of the day, he did reorganized these companies for a purpose, however "unfair" one can characterize it. In the process, he experienced the effects of government policies directly. Experienced how it affected the decisions either directly or indirectly from actions or inactions of the government. That experience in conjunction with his previous experience as a Governor, and yes knowledge of economics in general, which I am pretty sure he has, is what makes him a good choice.

I would arge that an economics professor is just as ill suited, to run an economy. That you would seek someone with diverse experiences, is rather obvious. If Mittens was "just a business executive", you would have a point.

That was a general statement rather than specifically about Romney.

And I certainly don't think that actual economists are bad at understanding the economy. When it comes to running it, one gets back to my first point about political skill.

I must of course also comment on the notion that I don't understand conservative economic policy or whatever. I guess I'd say...lol?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 06, 2012, 03:43:26 PM
Well, I presumed you were a Keynesian rather than an Austrian.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 06, 2012, 03:51:10 PM
Well, I presumed you were a Keynesian rather than an Austrian.

Well...hardly any educated, living economist is an Austrian. Which is not to say they didn't contribute something to economics back in the day. Of course, not that many people are Keynesians either (unless you're counting neo-Keynesians).

I'm more of a Chicago guy I'd say.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 06, 2012, 03:57:50 PM
Quote
Well...hardly any educated, living economist is an Austrian.

Considering that many of the big names have passed on - that's really not a surprise.

Quote
Of course, not that many people are Keynesians either (unless you're counting neo-Keynesians).

I'm lumping the Neo-Keynesians together, just mostly a broad definition.

Quote
I'm more of a Chicago guy I'd say.

Well, that's Friedman et al, I'd consider you closer to Hayek than to Keynes.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 06, 2012, 04:07:10 PM
Quote
Well...hardly any educated, living economist is an Austrian.

Considering that many of the big names have passed on - that's really not a surprise.

Quote
Of course, not that many people are Keynesians either (unless you're counting neo-Keynesians).

I'm lumping the Neo-Keynesians together, just mostly a broad definition.

Quote
I'm more of a Chicago guy I'd say.

Well, that's Friedman et al, I'd consider you closer to Hayek than to Keynes.

Well, I'm not sure I would...anyway, the charge that my point was based on not understanding or disagreeing with some conservative economical idea should maybe be backed up by something more than just throwing around some label? What idea is it specifically that you're thinking of?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 06, 2012, 04:11:52 PM
Quote
Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

I'd disagree with you here. A businessman needs to have practical knowledge about the economy in order to be an effective businessman. He should understand supply and demand. If he can accurately gage demand for things then he will make more money, if he can understand what people want and why.

I don't think the argument that 'businessmen know nothing about economics is very valid. Businessmen are much more sensitive to local realities even if they don't see the overall picture.

Did you mean to say macroeconomics?


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 06, 2012, 04:18:41 PM
Quote
Running a business and running an economy is very different though. It's amazing how many people on the right seem unable to grasp this. Business success is about having business ideas and being good at management. Not about understanding the world or economics.

I'd disagree with you here. A businessman needs to have practical knowledge about the economy in order to be an effective businessman. He should understand supply and demand. If he can accurately gage demand for things then he will make more money, if he can understand what people want and why.

I don't think the argument that 'businessmen know nothing about economics is very valid. Businessmen are much more sensitive to local realities even if they don't see the overall picture.

Did you mean to say macroeconomics?

A businessman doesn't really need to know supply and demand - that's why market economies work better than planned economies. He only needs to know his cost of production and the going market price, both of which can be easily ascertained and require no skill.

That's all in the model world anyway. In reality, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did not get rich because they were good with economics but because they were good with technology. And that's how it is with most business people.



Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 06, 2012, 04:19:48 PM
Quote
A businessman doesn't really need to know supply and demand

Sure he does. How else does he ascertain market pricing?

Quote
He only needs to know his cost of production and the going market price

Both of which are dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Going market price isn't going to stay static.

Quote
both of which can be easily ascertained and require no skill.

To make the most money, you want to be as close to the true market price as possible, and that's going to change. If your business is slow to react to these changes, then you are going to be losing money. I used to work for a store - my job was to overhaul their entire inventory system, to give them more centralized control over stock and real time updates.

Quote
In reality, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did not get rich because they were good with economics but because they were good with technology. And that's how it is with most business people.

There are plenty of people out there who were as good at techonology as Bill Gates and Jobs. Gates and Jobs were successful because they combined the talent of designing quality computer equipment, and because they had successful marketing and distribution strategies.

They were able to better meet the needs of people and they adjusted their pricing to reflect it. MS and Apple have very different business models, Apple focusses on quality, princing things more highly but simplifying them so that the users do not have as much to learn. Gates did the other way - looking at price first, trying to reduce the costs of his components and becoming the overall market leader through sales volume and mass production.



Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Gustaf on March 06, 2012, 05:22:40 PM
Quote
A businessman doesn't really need to know supply and demand

Sure he does. How else does he ascertain market pricing?

Quote
He only needs to know his cost of production and the going market price

Both of which are dictated by the laws of supply and demand. Going market price isn't going to stay static.

Quote
both of which can be easily ascertained and require no skill.

To make the most money, you want to be as close to the true market price as possible, and that's going to change. If your business is slow to react to these changes, then you are going to be losing money. I used to work for a store - my job was to overhaul their entire inventory system, to give them more centralized control over stock and real time updates.

Quote
In reality, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did not get rich because they were good with economics but because they were good with technology. And that's how it is with most business people.

There are plenty of people out there who were as good at techonology as Bill Gates and Jobs. Gates and Jobs were successful because they combined the talent of designing quality computer equipment, and because they had successful marketing and distribution strategies.

They were able to better meet the needs of people and they adjusted their pricing to reflect it. MS and Apple have very different business models, Apple focusses on quality, princing things more highly but simplifying them so that the users do not have as much to learn. Gates did the other way - looking at price first, trying to reduce the costs of his components and becoming the overall market leader through sales volume and mass production.



Sure, the market price is driven by supply and demand but you don't have to know the specific curves to figure out the price, which was my point. And though it's not static, it's usually reasonably stable. That again makes the model more nuanced though.

The point is rather that the kind of decisions businesspeople make are very different from most economic decisions taken by politicians.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 06, 2012, 10:37:37 PM
I'm liking this thead and its discussion about free market and business skill. Above success in importance is a fundamental understanding and appreciation for the free market. Business skill though is a quality trait though as it suggests skill when making deals on the budget and other necesssities needed for the Oval Office. Keep it going!


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: WillK on March 06, 2012, 10:59:05 PM
Our national debt is completely absurd. Running a seemingly perpetual trillion dollar deficit is a sure-fire way to stunt America's progress for generations to come.
...
We need somebody like Romney to axe some of the regulatory books and severely cut costs without dampening growth prospects in the present and future.

I cant tell if you are being sarcastic or serious.  Romney is going to increase the deficit.


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: pbrower2a on March 07, 2012, 02:01:56 PM

I am not a supporter of term limits, never said I was. You once again read to much into something and posted a bunch of crap distracting from the core issues of the topic. I never created any line between legislating and governing. I was assessing the desire of conservatives for a Washington outsider. Since you mix your personal view with your analysis all the time, I am not surprised you assume others do so as well.

We can all state positions including those with which we disagree. Someone said that conservatives tend to support term limits -- which seems true. It is easy for people to impute reasons to contemporary conservatives -- for example, that they want participation in the legislative process to not be a career, that continuance in office allows legislators to go out of tough with the "Real World", that the legislative process inherently corrupts elected officials... to which a liberal might retort that the  "Real World" looks very different between a minority-dominated district in Houston and some largely-rural and predominately white district in the Texas Panhandle and that politicians expected  to represent voters in both districts can reasonably be expected to express political reality very differently, that constituent service becomes potentially better the longer that one holds onto a legislative seat, that lobbyists get better knowledge of how to use the political process to effect change than do politicians, that rapid turnover of legislative offices encourages a revolving door between special interests and government in which being an elected official is just another item on a career as a business executive, and that even without term limits voters can oust elected officials who prove incompetent or corrupt. Maybe it is easier to develop into a reliable 'conservative' stooge for Big Business than it is to develop as a liberal because conservative positions more easily come from a simpler explanation of principles and policies because liberalism implies a more complicated understanding of human nature instead of profit-and-loss. Profit-and-loss isn't everything even for conservatives as persons.     
   
Quote
How did you get that out of an explanation as to why the GOP base hate Washington? More exaggerations of conservative positions, more personal bias, more paranoia, and thus more garbage.

Did I have to put it so crudely as "I just don't trust the b@stards"? The Movement Conservatives or our time are no longer the likes of Everett Dirksen who recognized that the common man needed to believe that he was getting something from the overall system. To describe them as mirror-image Marxists -- that is, people who believe in the very things that Marx and all later socialists and liberals consider objectionable. Capitalism and the conservatism that largely defends capitalism both need a human face lest capitalism and conservatism become an endorsement of economic cruelty for the enrichment and pampering of elites as the primary objective of business and government.

Conservatism needs to grow up. Material gain and indulgence aren't everything -- which explains why there aren't as many pimps and pushers as a very sordid view of human nature would suggest.       
Quote


We now get to judge him on his results, and what he was before he was President no longer matters except as description. It would not matter now if the President did as he does after having spent most of his life as a long-haul trucker. We legitimately judge politicians on their results.

The thread is suppose defend longterm incumbents and insiders. That section initially included Lincoln short government experience as well. I removed it to reduce the length. It wasn't meant to be a hit on Obama, but a defense of "alleged" outsiders.
[/quote]

Insiders are inevitable in any political order irrespective of its ideology whether those people are born to the position (aristocracy),  own the resources and manage the labor (plutocracy), develop and exploit information that they keep to themselves (bureaucracy), develop power over people through fear of horrific consequences for any misstep (tyranny),  or elected (democracy).   Just think of Soviet reality in practice: the revolutionaries ended up going after each other and becoming either enforcers or victims, and real power gravitated to an unelected Party boss for decisions on who lived and who died and to politically-reliable bureaucrats who could enrich themselves by arranging what a free market would otherwise make easy.

...It is a facile enterprise to look to the "intent of the Founders". Without question they saw relatively few people as appropriate holders of political power: officials chosen by the People in periodic and competitive elections, persons appointed by the elected President and subject to Congressional approval, and persons under the employ, as necessary for the execution of appropriate power  but strictly-limited authority and who could be fired for incompetence or misconduct. Innovations in that norm have inherent dangers. Economic interests never got representation (which would be fascism as a political structure) as such. Although much ambiguity remains on what role government has in the economy (so long as it does not steal assets from owners) and in practice the methods of serving people the Founders were quite clear about things that the government could not do -- like torture, summary executions, suppression of press and speech, ex post facto laws and bills of attainder,  sale of offices, and religious discrimination. They also determined an overall pattern of political structure and practice  modified little since -- notably checks and balances on power within the government .

Elected officials were generally understood to have independence from all but their voters and not to be responsible to some Party Boss or to some "Commission of Public Morals" (contemporary Iran), or lobbyists deputized by corporate interests to supervise them in practice. The latter is in the formative stage in America, and that is the formative stage of a new manner of undemocratic government. It is so novel that it has no obvious name for it; one would have to coin a term for "Government by lobbyists and enforcers of economic interests". Maybe in Wisconsin it is already being called "Walker-ism" and in Florida it is being called "Scott-ism".

We still have the means to vote out incompetent, corrupt, irresponsible, or sold-out politicians when they seek re-election. We the People are the ultimate check and balance against executive despotism and a legislature running amok or selling out. If We the People abandon that  responsibility then we are at the mercy of a government that rules us with impunity.   


Title: Re: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 07, 2012, 02:16:49 PM
I agree with the last part brower said. I'm a fan of term limits but I don't see congress ever voting themselves out of office. Maybe have 2 six-year terms in the Senate and 6 two-year terms in the house and allow them to run again after another 12 years.