• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Romney Ask Obama Why the Government Should Be Run Like a Business?

Mmm?

  • Yes, the question will catch Obama off guard.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
One of the reasons I can't stand modern Republicans is because many forget how private property requires properness. The current GOP is very utilitarian in that it privatizes the rule of law itself via lobbying and lawyering instead of advocating social values and procedural justice first.

If Romney asked this simple question, he could stop looking apologetic, stop being defensive, and actually make Obama defend his track record. He could also prove to independents that he's not an elitist despite his economic expertise, claiming that the key to economic success is hands off, allowing for creative thinking, and not trying to be some micromanaging Keynesian who treats the economy like his own private enterprise.

What Romney needs to do is remind Americans why they're unconfident. He needs to run on a platform of transparency, openness, and a willingness to combat corruption so Americans can see how the insides of Washington work. That way, Americans themselves become convinced that bureaucratic reform is necessary in order to create not only a more stable investment environment, but a more stable legal environment in general.

Many Americans are paranoid these days in how social lawsuits seem to be around every corner as well, so they live with reservations because they're afraid of stepping on other people's toes. By reminding people about social conservatism, Romney can alleviate this fear by bringing together holistic community. As an added bonus, this social confidence will drive up demand such that the economy has something to produce for again.
 
Last edited:
Government should not be run like a business, that's stupid. Government should be run like a government.
 
Obama knows the reality of the situation: government IS NOT a business.
 
I got to agree with Ikari here. Businesses are there to draw a profit...that is it. Governments are there to...well try and uphold freedoms while not diving into anarchy. At least that is my definition of what government should be...protect the nation and the citizens' rights.
 
first, government isn't a business, as several posters have already pointed out.

however, those promoting the "run government as a business" talking point are usually referring to debt. even though government isn't a business, debt should certainly be handled more responsibly before it reaches crisis, as is happening in smaller first world countries as we speak. so to put it in business terms, we're going to have to take a look at the product line, consolidate it by priority, and charge more for it.
 
I got to agree with Ikari here. Businesses are there to draw a profit...that is it. Governments are there to...well try and uphold freedoms while not diving into anarchy. At least that is my definition of what government should be...protect the nation and the citizens' rights.

What "right" do citizens have to income redistribution? This is a central theme of GOP public policy, yet NOT reflected in many of their bills, as they fear the political fallout. I will readily admit that the GOP allows corporate welfare and still advocates massive "defense" spending and continued silly nation building madness.

ALL of the DC morons, in both parties, that are supposed to represent us, do only the bidding of rich lobbyists, but only the demorats seem incapable of seeing that borrowing to "invest" in poverty does not cure it, it simply maintains it, and only the republicants seem incapable of seeing that massive subsidies to corporations stiffle competition not encourage it. Both seem to see massive "defense" spending as good (patriotic?) for both the USA and the world yet have nothing to show for it but massive federal debt.

Neither Romney nor Obama seem to have any real plan to "fix" the U.S. economy, but Obama knows that buying votes with tax money works, Romney knows that running against a weak economy gets votes. In order for Romney to WIN he must present a simple, understandable (not goofy 59-point) economic plan. Obama has dropped his 2008 hopey changey nonsense, but has replaced it with "anything GOP says it wants is what caused this economic mess" and is never challenged by the MSM on that nonsense. Obama has no economic plan (except income redistribution), Romney has yet to articulate any plan and the voters are left to flip a coin on which "lack of a plan" will cause any change in the economy. No they can't!
 
One of the reasons I can't stand modern Republicans is because many forget how private property requires properness. The current GOP is very utilitarian in that it privatizes the rule of law itself via lobbying and lawyering instead of advocating social values and procedural justice first.

If Romney asked this simple question, he could stop looking apologetic, stop being defensive, and actually make Obama defend his track record. He could also prove to independents that he's not an elitist despite his economic expertise, claiming that the key to economic success is hands off, allowing for creative thinking, and not trying to be some micromanaging Keynesian who treats the economy like his own private enterprise.

What Romney needs to do is remind Americans why they're unconfident. He needs to run on a platform of transparency, openness, and a willingness to combat corruption so Americans can see how the insides of Washington work. That way, Americans themselves become convinced that bureaucratic reform is necessary in order to create not only a more stable investment environment, but a more stable legal environment in general.

Many Americans are paranoid these days in how social lawsuits seem to be around every corner as well, so they live with reservations because they're afraid of stepping on other people's toes. By reminding people about social conservatism, Romney can alleviate this fear by bringing together holistic community. As an added bonus, this social confidence will drive up demand such that the economy has something to produce for again.

If government was ran like a business then every politician's job would be outsourced to China,India and other countries. The webcams will point at some Chinese or Indian worker who is making 23 cents an hour and skyped to monitors at the White house.
 
Last edited:
Obama knows the reality of the situation: government IS NOT a business.
That is true. And a good thing as well. If government were a business, Obama would be an even worse steward than he is now. Sure, a government is not motivated by profit like a business would be, but in managing well the resources it does have, it could certainly learn a few things from the business world. But with business there is always competition, and government is a monopoly, and as such it tends to fall into all the bad practices that any monopoly would. That is one of the reasons why you limit it's size and power.
 
If government was ran like a business then every politician's job would be outsourced to China,India and other countries. The webcams will point at some Chinese or Indian worker who is making 23 cents an hour and skyped to monitors at the White house.

Hello, I'm your President, Bob. Your call may be recorded for quality assurance.
 
Obama knows the reality of the situation: government IS NOT a business.

Well, they own a lot of GM. That's kinda like being a business, isn't it?

I think the point is that government needs to be what it hasn't been for over 100 years or more, accountable, and responsible with our money. Think of it like we are the shareholders in 'USA', and government needs to act that way.
 
What a stupid question to ask. Governments are not businesses and that is the main reason we don't need a businessman as our president.
 
What a stupid question to ask. Governments are not businesses and that is the main reason we don't need a businessman as our president.

Yeah, what we need to straighten things out is a community organizer with a law degree that doesn't understand that the SCOTUS *can* rule laws unconstitutional. Oh wait... that's not working out so well.
 
Yeah, what we need to straighten things out is a community organizer with a law degree that doesn't understand that the SCOTUS *can* rule laws unconstitutional. Oh wait... that's not working out so well.

Yes imagine that, a status quo politicians upholding the status quo. So the solution is a different status quo politician? That's gonna get us out of this mess?
 
Yes imagine that, a status quo politicians upholding the status quo. So the solution is a different status quo politician? That's gonna get us out of this mess?

Most likely not, we are too far 'gone'. But then again, no 3rd party candidate would get us out of this mess either, as the legislature is a bigger problem than the president. Though with all the executive orders and such they are quickly trying to bypass the legislature in terms of damage they do.

Since there is no real chance for any 3rd party, the best thing is to change them out every single time an election comes. Each and every one of them until we start finding people that actually deserve to be there.
 
Most likely not, we are too far 'gone'. But then again, no 3rd party candidate would get us out of this mess either, as the legislature is a bigger problem than the president. Though with all the executive orders and such they are quickly trying to bypass the legislature in terms of damage they do.

Since there is no real chance for any 3rd party, the best thing is to change them out every single time an election comes. Each and every one of them until we start finding people that actually deserve to be there.

So since there is "no real chance" for a 3rd party, our best thing to do is carry on like normal and allow the government to grow even more distant from the People?

I believe it has been said that the true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
 
So since there is "no real chance" for a 3rd party, our best thing to do is carry on like normal and allow the government to grow even more distant from the People?

What exactly is voting for a 3rd party doing to help things? How well has it been working out in terms of turning things around?

Never letting one of the idiots from the big two serve more than 1 term is a quicker way to put them 'on notice' that the people care and are paying attention. Unfortunately the majority is to tied up in their own lives and doesn't really care.

I believe it has been said that the true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Yes, as I said, how's voting for that 3rd party been working out?
 
What exactly is voting for a 3rd party doing to help things? How well has it been working out in terms of turning things around?

Never letting one of the idiots from the big two serve more than 1 term is a quicker way to put them 'on notice' that the people care and are paying attention. Unfortunately the majority is to tied up in their own lives and doesn't really care.



Yes, as I said, how's voting for that 3rd party been working out?

Voting third party is a necessity. To "put them on notice" you have to threaten their ability to continually be elected and to gain power. There's no threat if you merely teeter-totter between the two. They just have to wait to the next election cycle and they'll get into power again. Like what we've been doing. If there's a problem with the system, the solution isn't to carry on with the problems. You must address the problems, and the real problem is true political competition within our system. The Republocrats are under no threat of losing power and as such, they no longer fear the people. You're "put them on notice" does nothing as we already see within the system proper.

How's voting for that single party been working out?
 
Voting third party is a necessity. To "put them on notice" you have to threaten their ability to continually be elected and to gain power.

And are they shaking in their boots because of *all* the 3rd party people that have been elected?

How's voting for that single party been working out?

Sounds like you are the single party voter... I don't know which of the 3rd parties it is, but obviously you are voting for one party alone. Otherwise your talk would be nothing but hypocrisy. How many legislators or presidents have you and your single party managed to get elected?
 
And are they shaking in their boots because of *all* the 3rd party people that have been elected?

No, you have to aggregate votes to a high enough level to affect the elections. Which is a bit more work than your "hold the line" method

Sounds like you are the single party voter... I don't know which of the 3rd parties it is, but obviously you are voting for one party alone. Otherwise your talk would be nothing but hypocrisy. How many legislators or presidents have you and your single party managed to get elected?

I don't vote Republocrat, I'm not insane. I know voting for the status quo will only perpetuate the status quo.

How about yourself? How much change have you affected with your single party voting? More controlled government? Government more responsible to the people? Government with proper spending and taxing? Government not expanding its powers against the individual? No you say? The difference here is that you're ok with the slow boat to hell and I'm fighting like hell to get us off that beaten path.
 
No, you have to aggregate votes to a high enough level to affect the elections. Which is a bit more work than your "hold the line" method

So what you are saying, is that by you voting 3rd party, nobody in the 'big two' has really noticed you, that your plot to overthrow them isn't even on their radar? Well that sounds like an astounding success.

When you actually accomplish something with such foolishness, let us know, if any of us is still alive by then.

Before any 'change' can happen, you need to get off a tiny little forum, and get out in the world and make people care.
 
So what you are saying, is that by you voting 3rd party, nobody in the 'big two' has really noticed you, that your plot to overthrow them isn't even on their radar? Well that sounds like an astounding success.

When you actually accomplish something with such foolishness, let us know, if any of us is still alive by then.

Before any 'change' can happen, you need to get off a tiny little forum, and get out in the world and make people care.

I know quite well. It's when you deal with those under delusion that support of the status quo will lead to something other than the status quo wherein you find a lot of difficulty.

That being said, the system is well rigged against third party success for this exact reason. If there is true political competition, the main party could lose power either short term or indefinitely. To protect against that, the rules have been set against third party participation in our system.
 
I know quite well. It's when you deal with those under delusion that support of the status quo will lead to something other than the status quo wherein you find a lot of difficulty.

That being said, the system is well rigged against third party success for this exact reason. If there is true political competition, the main party could lose power either short term or indefinitely. To protect against that, the rules have been set against third party participation in our system.

So now that the reality that you voting for 3rd party people has been shown to not really do anything in terms of bringing forth change, you shift to say that 'it's a conspiracy man!' ??

:lamo
 
So now that the reality that you voting for 3rd party people has been shown to not really do anything in terms of bringing forth change, you shift to say that 'it's a conspiracy man!' ??

:lamo

It's not a conspiracy, these are the rules under which participation in terms of campaign contributions through participation in televised debates are handled.

What have you accomplished through support of the status quo? Has the status quo been changed?
 
Government should not be run like a business, that's stupid. Government should be run like a government.


But the government is run like a for-profit-business for the profit of those in government and those in the private sector that pay to keep those in government in government.

Obama has turned the government business of giving public funds to business for political personal profit into an art form. To have a successful corporation requires buying off the White House. In turn, the White House will give your company hundreds of millions of dollars and unfair exemptions from regulations your competitors have to pay for.

As example, was Obama personally granting ObamaCare exemption to the Wal-Mart heirs - because they only had about $20,000,000,000.00 each and Obama decided they needed a government bailout exemption for ObamaCare.

Obama is the best friend billionaires ever had.
 
Back
Top Bottom