Shouldn't limited govt work and mostly private sector work be a disadvantage?

[Politico]

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).

You must be logged in to read this 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.

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).

[Politico]

... (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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Politico]

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.

[Politico]

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).

You must be logged in to read this 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.

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.

[Politico]

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.

[Politico]

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.