Have you had enough of running the government like a business yet? No. 1

[blastula]

Thus he threatens to not fulfill the US's treaty obligation to defend any member who is attacked because they didn't contribute enough to their own defense. The most charitable interpretation is that Trump is establishing an extreme negotiating position that he will back away from to gain a more favorable final outcome for the US. This is very dangerous because it erodes the very basis of the alliance for a minor gain to the US. One that he has no intention of exploiting, he won't lower US defense spending because Germany finances an additional tank battalion or builds an additional patrol boat.

This negotiating tactic even has a limited utility in business, because the people who use it quickly earn the reputation of constantly bluffing. It is even less useful in diplomacy, where you are negotiating with the same people more often. It is even less useful for someone who already has the reputation of lying constantly, which Trump has.

It comes across like he thinks he's a mafia boss collecting protection money. Maybe he's trying to run it like organized crime.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The skills required to run a business and the skills required to run a government are different. The fact that Trump's casinos went bankrupt is proof of it - a business stops operating when it is no longer profitable. If GAAP accounting were used on the government, the national debt would be quadrupled at least, as just one example.

He is used to an environment where you have to respond to customer demands. That is completely different from government. The customers cannot nearly as easily opt-out if they dislike what the government is doing as they can if they don't like what a business is doing. I stopped buying Levis a few years ago. While I doubt they notice, the point is I had the choice.

So putting a businessman in charge of government. His instincts are to say to the departments "what are you producing?" How many of them actually produce anything, and of those that do produce something how many can actually formulate an answer in those terms? If someone isn't doing what the business wants, he is fired, something that is risky at best with regards to the permanent bureaucracy that comprises 99.99% of the government.

 

[braces_for_impact]

He's not just a businessman. He's a real estate magnate in New York City. This is a realm of shady deals, skirting the law, and taking advantage to get your piece. Here is a great example featuring his very own son in law, also in that business in the same area. Trump has legality problems from the moment he started hs business, and it all continues to this day. Trump is ALL about projection, He calls Hillary Clinton "crooked Hillary". He is as crooked as they come.

 

[Horatio Parker]

He's not just a businessman. He's a real estate magnate in New York City. This is a realm of shady deals, skirting the law, and taking advantage to get your piece. Here is a great example featuring his very own son in law, also in that business in the same area. Trump has legality problems from the moment he started hs business, and it all continues to this day. Trump is ALL about projection, He calls Hillary Clinton "crooked Hillary". He is as crooked as they come.

He was also the beneficiary of a ground shift in fiscal policy. Trump received $350M in tax abatements for his Commodore Hotel deal. Which came behind NYC's brush with bankruptcy in 1975. What used to be spent on social services now had to go to "business development".

 

[laughing dog]

The skills required to run a business and the skills required to run a government are different. The fact that Trump's casinos went bankrupt is proof of it - a business stops operating when it is no longer profitable. If GAAP accounting were used on the government, the national debt would be quadrupled at least, as just one example.

Government is not a business, so it would be stupid to apply them. But if one did, the national debt might increase, but then again, the value of the government assets would be valued. And as anyone in business understands, one's debt should be measured against one's ability to pay which includes one's assets.

He is used to an environment where you have to respond to customer demands. That is completely different from government. The customers cannot nearly as easily opt-out if they dislike what the government is doing as they can if they don't like what a business is doing. I stopped buying Levis a few years ago. While I doubt they notice, the point is I had the choice.

The "customers" of government can change the management - customers of business cannot.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The "customers" of government can change the management - customers of business cannot.

How very optimistic. While that's true in a high school civics classroom, it is quite a bit harder in the real world.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The "customers" of government can change the management - customers of business cannot.

How very optimistic. While that's true in a high school civics classroom, it is quite a bit harder in the real world.

You mean how our options in the last election were between Giant Turd and Deuschbag?


I was told on that that thread about government run medical care that the government has both efficiency and saving the tax payers in mind with their decisions, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

[SimpleDon]

Are you three years old?

A new Supreme Court Justice with this bent towards wealth and privilege represents significant change.

It is now easier for Republican cretins to do their harm.

I am unable to find a single case on which Gorsuch has even ruled as Supreme Court justice.

It's weird how much you feel his appointment has affected your life.

But it is important how the various appointees approach their jobs. Did you know that the various Bush administration officials would refuse to enforce the laws and regulations concerning corporate governance and excessive risk taking for banks because they believed that the financial sector had learned to self-regulate?

This refusal to enforce the laws on the books eventually resulted in the largest financial sector meltdown since the Great Depression, resulting in millions losing their jobs, millions losing their homes and losing 12 trillion dollars of lost capital value in their homes, the largest reduction in middle class wealth in history. The Bush appointees believed in a delusion, that government regulations unnecessarily burdened the financial sector and that the regulations were not required, So they didn't enforce the regulations.

These financial regulations are as necessary for the economy as the laws against murder and theft are necessary for society in general for the same reason, to prevent anarchy resulting from the misbehavior of a few. And yet this delusion is pretty common among conservatives and Republicans still, including Trump and the people whom he has appointed to enforce these same banking and financial sector regulations.

There are a few of these deluded ideologues even here, although most are, for obvious reasons, reluctant to admit it. They hide behind a kind of false Socratic questioning. One that never leads through logical steps to a conclusion or that explores the assumptions surrounding complexity, again for the obvious reason that there is no logic or complex ideas behind the questioning, only delusions grounded in fantasies.

There is ample evidence, including his own statements and in his decisions as an appeals court judge, that Gorsuch believes that the federal government should be limited to the rule of law that the authors of the US Constitution foresaw when they wrote the document over two hundred and fifty years ago. That it is necessary to consult a select group of the individual authors‘ intent, instead of the collective words they all signed when we try to apply the Constitution to today's law.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch and the other reactionaries already on the court, in various degrees, deny that the constitution restricts the states. That it only limits the actions of the federal government, that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were only intended to end slavery, not to burden the states with the consideration of the individual rights protected by the US Constitution.

This is once again an all too common delusion among the reactionary elements of conservatives and Republicans, who want to rollback the social progress of the last fifty years or so, largely in pursuit of a time that never existed, yet another fantasy.

This is as much of a delusion as believing that after thousands of years under government regulation that the banks had finally learned to self-regulate. We can't rollback progress, no matter how uncomfortable conservatives are with it.

So yes, we can predict the implications of appointing the victims of these delusions, the fantasies about the way that the economy, society and the world works, because we have seen the problems that these people have created before.

 

[dismal]

I am unable to find a single case on which Gorsuch has even ruled as Supreme Court justice.

It's weird how much you feel his appointment has affected your life.

But it is important how the various appointees approach their jobs. Did you know that the various Bush administration officials would refuse to enforce the laws and regulations concerning corporate governance and excessive risk taking for banks because they believed that the financial sector had learned to self-regulate?

This refusal to enforce the laws on the books eventually resulted in the largest financial sector meltdown since the Great Depression, resulting in millions losing their jobs, millions losing their homes and losing 12 trillion dollars of lost capital value in their homes, the largest reduction in middle class wealth in history. The Bush appointees believed in a delusion, that government regulations unnecessarily burdened the financial sector and that the regulations were not required, So they didn't enforce the regulations.

These financial regulations are as necessary for the economy as the laws against murder and theft are necessary for society in general for the same reason, to prevent anarchy resulting from the misbehavior of a few. And yet this delusion is pretty common among conservatives and Republicans still, including Trump and the people whom he has appointed to enforce these same banking and financial sector regulations.

There are a few of these deluded ideologues even here, although most are, for obvious reasons, reluctant to admit it. They hide behind a kind of false Socratic questioning. One that never leads through logical steps to a conclusion or that explores the assumptions surrounding complexity, again for the obvious reason that there is no logic or complex ideas behind the questioning, only delusions grounded in fantasies.

There is ample evidence, including his own statements and in his decisions as an appeals court judge, that Gorsuch believes that the federal government should be limited to the rule of law that the authors of the US Constitution foresaw when they wrote the document over two hundred and fifty years ago. That it is necessary to consult a select group of the individual authors‘ intent, instead of the collective words they all signed when we try to apply the Constitution to today's law.

Meanwhile, Gorsuch and the other reactionaries already on the court, in various degrees, deny that the constitution restricts the states. That it only limits the actions of the federal government, that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were only intended to end slavery, not to burden the states with the consideration of the individual rights protected by the US Constitution.

This is once again an all too common delusion among the reactionary elements of conservatives and Republicans, who want to rollback the social progress of the last fifty years or so, largely in pursuit of a time that never existed, yet another fantasy.

This is as much of a delusion as believing that after thousands of years under government regulation that the banks had finally learned to self-regulate. We can't rollback progress, no matter how uncomfortable conservatives are with it.

So yes, we can predict the implications of appointing the victims of these delusions, the fantasies about the way that the economy, society and the world works, because we have seen the problems that these people have created before.

Is appointing a supreme court justice people on the other side don't like (and who has yet to rule in a case) really the best example we have of how Trump is messing things up by "running the government like a business"?

I have been involved in lots of businesses in my time and in none of them did we ever appoint a supreme court justice.

 

[Deepak]

I have been involved in lots of businesses in my time and in none of them did we ever appoint a supreme court justice.

You just weren't in the right business

 

[dismal]

I have been involved in lots of businesses in my time and in none of them did we ever appoint a supreme court justice.

You just weren't in the right business

View attachment 11289

Yeah, none of the businesses i know have had cabinet secretaries either.

Would it help if you guys huddled and decided exactly what you mean by "running the government like a business"?

I'm not sure nominating supreme court justices and naming cabinet secretaries is all that different than what other presidents have done. It feels more like running the government like the Constitution says the government is supposed to be run.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It can mean different things according to whatever policy is being justified, but usually it means less social spending, in a word austerity. With an emphasis on a "balanced budget".

Although neither businesses or households are currency issuers, that nevertheless is the round hole they want to force a square peg into.

Trump seems to use his business experience as proof of his negotiating genius, but most remain unconvinced at this point.

 

[Deepak]

You just weren't in the right business

View attachment 11289

Yeah, none of the businesses i know have had cabinet secretaries either.

Would it help if you guys huddled and decided exactly what you mean by "running the government like a business"?

I'm not sure nominating supreme court justices and naming cabinet secretaries is all that different than what other presidents have done. It feels more like running the government like the Constitution says the government is supposed to be run.

I was replying to businesses appointing a Supreme - which a core function of government is, like passing legislation, certainly attainable for the right businesses.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yeah, none of the businesses i know have had cabinet secretaries either.

Would it help if you guys huddled and decided exactly what you mean by "running the government like a business"?

I'm not sure nominating supreme court justices and naming cabinet secretaries is all that different than what other presidents have done. It feels more like running the government like the Constitution says the government is supposed to be run.

I was replying to businesses appointing a Supreme - which a core function of government is, like passing legislation, certainly attainable for the right businesses.

Dismal is being picky here and the government isn't being run like a business, the correct argument would be the government running with more of a pro-business focus instead.

 

[dismal]

It can mean different things according to whatever policy is being justified, but usually it means less social spending, in a word austerity. With an emphasis on a "balanced budget".

Although neither businesses or households are currency issuers, that nevertheless is the round hole they want to force a square peg into.

Trump seems to use his business experience as proof of his negotiating genius, but most remain unconvinced at this point.

So, there's less social spending now than there was 6 months ago? And a balanced budget?

Cite?

 

[Ford]

I am unable to find a single case on which Gorsuch has even ruled as Supreme Court justice.

It's weird how much you feel his appointment has affected your life.

But it is important how the various appointees approach their jobs. Did you know that the various Bush administration officials would refuse to enforce the laws and regulations concerning corporate governance and excessive risk taking for banks because they believed that the financial sector had learned to self-regulate?

This refusal to enforce the laws on the books eventually resulted in the largest financial sector meltdown since the Great Depression, resulting in millions losing their jobs, millions losing their homes and losing 12 trillion dollars of lost capital value in their homes, the largest reduction in middle class wealth in history. The Bush appointees believed in a delusion, that government regulations unnecessarily burdened the financial sector and that the regulations were not required, So they didn't enforce the regulations.

And those still ensconced in this delusional thinking will tell you that the financial meltdown happened because the market just wasn't free enough. That the meager regulations put in place since then are the root of all evil, and that if we just leave the investment banks to their own devices they'll never plunge the economy into a tailspin again. Pinky swear!

Short term memory challenged Americans forgot that we already had a "CEO" President. We bet the farm on the idea that a business-friendly administration would make America great again. We lost that bet - bigly - and have now doubled down.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It can mean different things according to whatever policy is being justified, but usually it means less social spending, in a word austerity. With an emphasis on a "balanced budget".

Although neither businesses or households are currency issuers, that nevertheless is the round hole they want to force a square peg into.

Trump seems to use his business experience as proof of his negotiating genius, but most remain unconvinced at this point.

So, there's less social spending now than there was 6 months ago? And a balanced budget?

Cite?

Cite away if you like. I made neither argument.

 

[dismal]

So, there's less social spending now than there was 6 months ago? And a balanced budget?

Cite?

Cite away if you like. I made neither argument.

So you must think these people claiming the government is "being run like a business" are delusional?

That's kinda my point.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Cite away if you like. I made neither argument.

So you must think these people claiming the government is "being run like a business" are delusional?

That's kinda my point.

That govt is a business is a delusion, yes. And if you admit that, it's a short jump to admit the need to run it differently.

I can't speak for those who disagree or those who know better but say so because it's in their self interest.

Are you arguing that govt is a business?

 

[dismal]

So you must think these people claiming the government is "being run like a business" are delusional?

That's kinda my point.

That govt is a business is a delusion, yes. And if you admit that, it's a short jump to admit the need to run it differently.

I can't speak for those who disagree or those who know better but say so because it's in their self interest.

Are you arguing that govt is a business?

No, I'm arguing it's ridiculous to say the government is being run like a business.