Idiot government and why they are not a business.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ANOK

 

I disagree with that. In a truly well-regulated capitalist system, corporations are held the the strict guidelines of government corporate charters. In that charter, it specifically states that the corporation has to serve the common good.

If they don't, the charter is revoked.

So we have the infrastructure to do it, but we have to adhere to the rules.

What do you disagree with? That is how corporations work.

corporation
  Use Corporation in a sentence Origin
cor·po·ra·tion
   [kawr-puh-rey-shuhn]
noun
1.
an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.

dictionary.reference.com...

In other words corporations are treated like people, independent of the owners, that is the point of corporations. It doesn't break the rules of the charter.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by ANOK

 

As if that was the sole influence.

I never said it was the sole influence, but it is the major influence, and the major problem with the government we have. Those with the economic power do so will influence government far more than you or me can.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Not hard to fund?

Seriously?

As the population of people on those programs age the costs increases, as the government gives itself more power those costs increase,.

I really am tired of the same old lies about "war spending" being the root of all evil when the fact remains that more money has been spent on entitlement spending that all the wars combined of over 200 years:

This stuff is easy to find for those who don't like to deal with dogma becoming "so called facts"

First off here we go:



That one is not good enough I guess so here is another one that will get dismissed out of blind ideology:


That is what near 2 trillion and 58% of the federal budget?

Believe that is right?

Still not good enough I bet so here is some more:



Here is more:



Still not good enough I guess so here is some more to read

www.heritage.org...

Last one here 7 eye opening charts

www.aei-ideas.org...

But never mind all those charts "defense" is the problem

Right.

reply to post by ANOK

Being in the black is not the same as making profit.

Your missing the point. Like a business, a council has sources of income and of course, sinks of expense. In order for any financial entity to operate in the black requires income to be greater than the expenses (pretty obvious)without leaning on credit and a local government/council is no different. In order for a council to be considered as running "in the black" it - by definition - must be operating at a profit.

Profit is what is taken by an owner, or owners, as their income from their company. Also known as surplus value. If the government makes money it goes back into the country, so it is not profit.

Well, if the incomings are greater than the outgoings, then it IS considered operating a profit, even if you think otherwise.


My point still stands. It is possible to operate a government like a business and have it work efficiently. Just because US of A can't get it right, doesn't make it impossible.

reply to post by neo96


So you're saying you would rather cut benefit programs than stop using the military, at your expense, to further capitalist interests?

It doesn't bother you that companies make money from war and destruction and don't pay taxes?

You would rather blame the poor? Poor because of the capitalist system? Government didn't send the jobs overseas to cheaper labour markets.

Nearly 10 years after the declaration of the War on Terror, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have killed at least 225,000 people, including men and women in uniform, contractors, and civilians. The wars will cost Americans between $3.2 and $4 trillion, including medical care and disability for current and future war veterans, according to a new report by the Eisenhower Research Project at the Watson Institute. If these wars continue, they are on track to require at least another $450 billion in Pentagon spending by 2020.

Research Cites 225,000 Lives Lost and US$4 Trillion in Spending on Post-9/11 Wars

What about all the returning disabled vets, would you deny them a government check? I am a disabled vet, would you deny me my measly $900 a month? Barely enough to survive on.

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

My point still stands. It is possible to operate a government like a business and have it work efficiently. Just because US of A can't get it right, doesn't make it impossible.

I get what you're saying, but technically they shouldn't run at a profit because all incoming money is re-used by the government. It will never bring in more than it spends because everything should be spent on the nation. If the government were making profit I would be asking why, when there are things the government needs to spend money on.

reply to post by ANOK


Those companies that employ millions of people and produce billions of tax revenue for people which in turn pay for those programs.

This is what some people just simply can not grasp about what "general welfare" means military spending is tax revenue dollars spent that directly effects everyone in this country in more ways than one.

First off securing a vital resource that the entire countries economy revolves around that there is nothing without out it oil, and other products and services.

The secondary benefit from that spending is a relatively "safe" environment such as no one is dropping bombs on peoples heads so they can work and produce other things that all generate tax revenue.

Cut defense and that is a duel edge sword that "safety" is gone that vital resource is gone, and where do those millions end up?

Oh yeah they still end up on the government payroll via welfare spending of course that is where would the money come from to fund all that?

The oil is gone, people would be jumping at the opportunity to take on the US with no way to fight back and than that would be all she wrote.

All out of twisted since of morality and a myopic viewpoint that as someone said "don't bite the hand that feeds them".

Cutting defense will not solve anything but create more than they would solve.

Cutting entitlement spending in this country would end up like Greece people getting killed over a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas.

Something has to be done this nation is screwed damned if you do damned if you don't scenario the fact those programs should have never been created in the first place.

The did not take in to consideration of globalization,development of emerging markets, and inflation and idiotic expansion of goverment power, or population increase.

To be blunt it is one giant crap sandwhich that everyone is going to have to take a bite out of.

reply to post by neo96


I disagree. We could have got rid of oil years ago, but capitalist interest keep it our main source of fuel because they use it to control the world economy.

They are not in the ME to protect us, they are there to control the economy and keep the ME from becoming a major player on the world markets. The ME could be the worlds dominant economic center quit easily, making the US and Europe the new third world. So the west controls the flow of oil using the military.

Excellent posts, both Neo and Occam, very good material I have read and am considering, great arguments but I need to do some of my own research before I reply.

Originally posted by neo96
Those companies that employ millions of people and produce billions of tax revenue for people which in turn pay for those programs.

But these millions of companies are exploiting the labour of those billions of people. Not only does the worker have to produce more than they are paid for, so the owner makes profit, but they also have pay the profits of third party owners when they purchase those products on the market. Not only that, the worker has to pay taxes for the programs everyone seems to think are free.

The biggest problem is not the programs, it is the private owners who are unnecessary and take the largest piece of the pie.

If workers owned the means of production not only would the profit stay with the worker, the majority of welfare programs would be made unnecessary. Not only that, wars for capitalist interests would also be made unnecessary.

This is what some people just simply can not grasp about what "general welfare" means military spending is tax revenue dollars spent that directly effects everyone in this country in more ways than one.
First off securing a vital resource that the entire countries economy revolves around that there is nothing without out it oil, and other products and services. The secondary benefit from that spending is a relatively "safe" environment such as no one is dropping bombs on peoples heads so they can work and produce other things that all generate tax revenue.

But we could have got rid of oil years ago. We only still have it because it is used to control the worlds markets, and it makes a few people extremely wealthy. We are not addicted to oil as someone once claimed, we simply have very little other choice. The reason wars are waged is because of the nature of the capitalist market, that only survives on either exploiting labour for profits, or exploiting resources at others expense, for profit. Capitalism has to keep resources artificially scarce because abundance lowers profits.

If wars were not profitable they would never happen.

Cut defense and that is a duel edge sword that "safety" is gone that vital resource is gone, and where do those millions end up?

Who said anything about cutting defense? I want a system that is not based on conquest and profit making for the few.

Government is actually a very successful high-end retail store. Personal shoppers can go in and never fail to find a service to drop loads of money on.