Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 11:02:07 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?  (Read 1384 times)
retromike22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1226
United States


View Profile
« on: March 02, 2012, 08:52:56 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9837
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2012, 07:15:20 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2012, 07:25:26 pm »
Ignore

"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.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2012, 07:36:25 pm »
Ignore

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).
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 07:55:00 pm by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Tidewater_Wave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2012, 07:51:36 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9837
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2012, 03:53:02 pm »
Ignore


... (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.

 
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2012, 03:57:56 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5384
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2012, 04:25:46 pm »
Ignore

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.


Logged
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2012, 04:37:22 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3740
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2012, 04:51:37 pm »
Ignore

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.    
Logged

They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5384
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2012, 05:50:47 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4466
Thailand


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2012, 05:59:05 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11978
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2012, 06:08:24 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35382
United States
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2012, 06:10:55 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
batmacumba
andrefeijao
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 447
France


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2012, 08:26:52 pm »
Ignore

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?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 08:46:12 pm by batmacumba »Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29151
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2012, 09:38:38 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2012, 10:38:03 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2012, 11:24:52 pm »
Ignore


... (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.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 12:16:49 am by Politico »Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2012, 11:29:19 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2012, 11:32:36 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4888
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2012, 11:34:31 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

- Bastiat
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9837
United States


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2012, 09:14:53 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
IDS Ex-Speaker Ben Kenobi
Ben Kenobi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2626
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2012, 11:43:36 am »
Ignore

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.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 11:48:44 am by Ben Kenobi »Logged

"By not voting, you would let someone win who wants to destroy the regions, raise taxes, remove guns from the street, nationalize transit, expand abortion coverage, a gut the military." - Hagrid
Sibboleth Bist
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56189
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 05, 2012, 12:33:11 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26762


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 05, 2012, 12:52:36 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines