DescentBB

....as I've noted before, there are similarities and differences to this analogy, but, for the sake of argument, let's accept that we OUGHT to run Government like a business.

If I have a corporation, I need to have a line of credit to deal with contingencies and investment. Every large corporation does so(they issue bonds). Now, if I am allowed to float bonds at 1%, I am going to float as much as I humanly can, because I know that I can make money over the long term by intelligent investment and pouring the money into R and D.
Now, our government has that luxury, and we've had it for a while now. A good deal of why we were able to recover from the recession to the extent we have(and most economists say we've done better than any other Western nation), was that our creditworthiness allowed us to borrow at around 0.6%. Given 3 more days of dithering, and that luxury will cease, very possibly forever. What will that mean? Massive tax increases to pay off borrowing costs. Less money to invest in our infrastructure and people. Less money for the poor, less money for disaster relief, less money for military needs and less capacity to withstand economic downturns.

Now, would any of you right-wing types like to explain how this scenario works out well for the average US citizen, or ANY US citizen without massive investment diversity? And, if you can't develop that scenario, then can you tell me why the GOP Tea Party types should not be tried for treason, as their actions of the past few weeks have directly aided and abetted any and all enemies of the US. As such, they should be hanged.

Just to make sure I'm reading you correctly:

If the Government was to try and operate like a business, what would happen to it if it lost its magical credit line? Would we charge our customers (taxpayers) more for our services? Should we try to sue the elected officers of our corporation, who are at fault?


That's what you're asking, right?

what would happen to it if it lost its magical credit line?

We would have to start downsizing programs and try this thing called efficiency. Our government is very inefficient. We have buildings full of workers that could be replaced by a server; this is 2013; we don't need paper forms any more.

Would we charge our customers (taxpayers) more for our services?


They were going to do that anyway.

Should we try to sue the elected officers of our corporation, who are at fault?

They were negligent, but they went into office promising they would do crazy crap like this. So whose fault is it? The moron or the morons that elected the morons? And by the way, we wouldn't have the teapartiers if it wasn't for Obama. We wouldn't have this grid lock if it wasn't for Obama. So before you place all the blame on the morons in the House, one should be aware that at least a part of the blame falls on Obama.

Isaac wrote:what would happen to it if it lost its magical credit line?

We would have to start downsizing programs and try this thing called efficiency. Our government is very inefficient. We have buildings full of workers that could be replaced by a server; this is 2013; we don't need paper forms any more.

and you pay for these conversion costs, how? Frankly, you don't just wave a magic wand and re-organize government. Hell, these clowns cannot even pass a continuing resolution....do you really expect them to quickly transform delivery of ALL government services overnight?

Would we charge our customers (taxpayers) more for our services?


They were going to do that anyway.

throwing away a guaranteed sub-1% credit line is beyond irresponsible. Yes, a tax hike is pretty much inevitable, or at the very least a complete re-write to fund the nation in a baby-boom economic reality, but without that cheap credit, the tax hikes would be an absolute shock to most people. One minor upside of this debacle is that FAR more people here see the point and the usefulness of government. Sadly, it took an absolute treasonous screwup to wake them up to it.

Should we try to sue the elected officers of our corporation, who are at fault?

They were negligent, but they went into office promising they would do crazy crap like this. So whose fault is it? The moron or the morons that elected the morons?

fair enough. I'm with you, but what happens when you have an uninformed electorate is that they don't realize that they just elected people who essentially promise to renege on their oath of office.

maybe someone should read a book called "the Toyota way". government could learn a thing or two from how they conduct business.

CUDA wrote:maybe someone should read a book called "the Toyota way". government could learn a thing or two from how they conduct business.

How about "Lean for Dummies"?

Heretic wrote:

CUDA wrote:maybe someone should read a book called "the Toyota way". government could learn a thing or two from how they conduct business.

How about "Lean for Dummies"?

well that might be more appropriate considering it's our government

callmeslick wrote:

Should we try to sue the elected officers of our corporation, who are at fault?

They were negligent, but they went into office promising they would do crazy crap like this. So whose fault is it? The moron or the morons that elected the morons?

fair enough. I'm with you, but what happens when you have an uninformed electorate is that they don't realize that they just elected people who essentially promise to renege on their oath of office.

and I'm sure that your directing that at BOTH parties aren't you???

actually, no I wasn't. That was purely for the Tea Party types. Those clowns were sworn to act in the best interests of the United States, and they clearly had no intention of doing so.

and why would I have expected you to be anything less than a partisan stance by you in that comment.

should we look into the presidents constitutional violations? or will you admit that he HAS violated his oath of office. if you'd like examples I will be more then willing to get them for you. but I'm sure you already know about them don't you?

I screwed up posting... extra post here...

callmeslick wrote: and you pay for these conversion costs, how? Frankly, you don't just wave a magic wand and re-organize government. Hell, these clowns cannot even pass a continuing resolution....do you really expect them to quickly transform delivery of ALL government services overnight?

I'll give you a magic wand... Paper reports should be almost completely eliminated because they require people to read them. Want to eliminate government jobs? Eliminate paper. Your tax account should be as easy to use as facebook and you should also be able to view your tax balance/credit at any given time. Small businesses should be able to print payroll right off this site, to completely eliminate the need for W-2s, 941s, 944s, 940s, and all the crap gets mailed with using those. Do you own a big business and have many people needing access to your tax account? Why not OpenAuth? Want to move a net operating loss to different years? Go ahead! Just drag and drop and money will flow directly into your account on any over payments. Want to do a bunch of what-if scenarios that include exact penalties? Go ahead! You can make any kind of change you want to the next ten years or past five years and you don't have to finalize any changes until you hit finalize or just save your current setup in case you want to make a new what-if tax plan. If you own a house, own stock, and have savings, then you shouldn't have to file a return, because all that stuff is already on private and/or government databases. just build an API that all money systems can talk to, so the IRS can review tax data live.

TL;DR: just build an API that all money systems can talk to, so the IRS can review tax data live.

callmeslick wrote: throwing away a guaranteed sub-1% credit line is beyond irresponsible. Yes, a tax hike is pretty much inevitable, or at the very least a complete re-write to fund the nation in a baby-boom economic reality, but without that cheap credit, the tax hikes would be an absolute shock to most people. One minor upside of this debacle is that FAR more people here see the point and the usefulness of government. Sadly, it took an absolute treasonous screwup to wake them up to it.

I agree

callmeslick wrote:actually, no I wasn't. That was purely for the Tea Party types. Those clowns were sworn to act in the best interests of the United States, and they clearly had no intention of doing so.

This is the maddening part of the current situation. We have two diverging ideologies on the subject of what's best for the country. People like you that refuse to acknowledge the other ideology get on their high horses and make these condemning statements about how the other side obviously doesn't care about the country. You even opened the conversation by telling us that we had to assume that your ideology was correct... so you're not really looking for a debate, are you?

Tell me if this helps: Oh, yes slick, those extreme right wing conservatives are such idiots, they are just using their positions of power to toy with the whole country. If they can't have things their way they are just going to take their ball and go home and ruin everything for everyone. If they cared about anything but their own egos they'd obviously vote to spend billions of dollars more on everything, to stimulate all of those amazing R&D efforts the government is trying to fund, and the world would be fixed within 2-3years.

If they cared about anything but their own egos they'd obviously vote to spend billions of dollars more on everything, to stimulate all of those amazing R&D efforts the government is trying to fund, and the world would be fixed within 2-3years.

they did that 5 years ago. we can see how well that worked cant we.

CUDA wrote:

If they cared about anything but their own egos they'd obviously vote to spend billions of dollars more on everything, to stimulate all of those amazing R&D efforts the government is trying to fund, and the world would be fixed within 2-3years.

they did that 5 years ago. we can see how well that worked cant we.

well, according to the head of Moody's Analytics, and most other major economists, it worked extremely well. Far, far better than most Western nations, as a matter of fact. The only thing almost all economists agree on that was wrong, was that we spent too little given the very low cost of borrowing which gave us a window for far more stimulus.

Yea….to hell with the principal….

Ya I mean how can ANYONE expect to fix an economy on a paltry 8 trillion dollars

ignored my previous post by the way.

Spidey wrote:Yea….to hell with the principal….

meaning what, exactly?


and to CUDA, no I didn't......look again.
edit: oops....sitting there, composed but not sent.

CUDA wrote:and why would I have expected you to be anything less than a partisan stance by you in that comment.

should we look into the presidents constitutional violations? or will you admit that he HAS violated his oath of office. if you'd like examples I will be more then willing to get them for you. but I'm sure you already know about them don't you?

please show where he has violated either oath of office and Constitution. This should be priceless.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:and why would I have expected you to be anything less than a partisan stance by you in that comment.

should we look into the presidents constitutional violations? or will you admit that he HAS violated his oath of office. if you'd like examples I will be more then willing to get them for you. but I'm sure you already know about them don't you?

please show where he has violated either oath of office and Constitution. This should be priceless.

Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.

23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment

Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress

NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything

Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress

Signed into law the establishment of NO Free Speech zones – noncompliance is a felony. Violation of 1st Amendment.

Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment

DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law.

Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1

Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated

Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-Trade

Attempt for Graphic tobacco warnings (under appeal) – 1st Amendment

Four Exec. appointments – Senate was NOT in recess (Court has ruled unconstitutional yet the appointees still remain)

Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Violation of Article II, Section 2

Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.

Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.

Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)

Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.

With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.

The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;


and I expect you to dispute each of them individually.

callmeslick wrote:....as I've noted before, there are similarities and differences to this analogy, but, for the sake of argument, let's accept that we OUGHT to run Government like a business.

If I have a corporation, I need to have a line of credit to deal with contingencies and investment. Every large corporation does so(they issue bonds). Now, if I am allowed to float bonds at 1%, I am going to float as much as I humanly can, because I know that I can make money over the long term by intelligent investment and pouring the money into R and D.
Now, our government has that luxury, and we've had it for a while now. A good deal of why we were able to recover from the recession to the extent we have(and most economists say we've done better than any other Western nation), was that our creditworthiness allowed us to borrow at around 0.6%. Given 3 more days of dithering, and that luxury will cease, very possibly forever. What will that mean? Massive tax increases to pay off borrowing costs. Less money to invest in our infrastructure and people. Less money for the poor, less money for disaster relief, less money for military needs and less capacity to withstand economic downturns.

Now, would any of you right-wing types like to explain how this scenario works out well for the average US citizen, or ANY US citizen without massive investment diversity? And, if you can't develop that scenario, then can you tell me why the GOP Tea Party types should not be tried for treason, as their actions of the past few weeks have directly aided and abetted any and all enemies of the US. As such, they should be hanged.

Noting you have never run a business, the big thing you are missing is...without showing a profit every now and then, you'll find your ability to borrow becomes either non-existent or you pay a much higher interest rate. This is why business's go broke.

For the sake of argument…a business can borrow to start up, expand or make up some shortfall…it CANNOT borrow 43 cents of every one it spends into perpetuity!

You should just go back to saying how the government is different from business…because this is a giant FAIL.

CUDA,
rather than kill a whole page here going one by one, I am merely going to ask how come NONE of those acts has been declared unconstitutional by any court at any level? Man, most of those are merely skewed opinions, a few are acts of Congress(Dodd-Frank, for example), and you clearly have no grasp of Executive power as it has been defined by the courts over the past 30 years. By your measure, every President from Reagan forward would have a list at LEAST that long. Hilarious, the hate-on you maintain.

woodchip wrote:Noting you have never run a business, the big thing you are missing is...without showing a profit every now and then, you'll find your ability to borrow becomes either non-existent or you pay a much higher interest rate. This is why business's go broke.

right, but governments do not carry that burden and never have. As long as they can maintain solvency and move forward, all is good. That is why I stated that I don't hold to the direct comparison. Profit is not the goal of a national economy, which can control both revenue and spending.

CUDA wrote: Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.not when misconduct was during prior administration

23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendmentnone of them held to be so by any court

Executive Order bypassing Congress on immigration – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congressall administrative power held by Exec.



Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.not true, US sovereignity was maintained, and well documented



Signed into law the establishment of NO Free Speech zones – noncompliance is a felony. Violation of 1st Amendment.act of Congress

Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendmentissue is what is taxable contribution, not at all clear

DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law.similar to any executive of any state or previous Presidents. They have every right to decline defense.

Dodd-Frank – Due process and separation of powers. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau writing and interpreting law. Article. I. Section. 1act of Congress

Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negatedonly if said citizen is actively involved in military action against nation

Bypassed Congress and gave EPA power to advance Cap-n-TradeCongress not needed to discuss





Appointing agency czars without the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Violation of Article II, Section 2approval not needed, also a functional response to irresponsible blocks on allowing Pres to have cabinet of choice.

Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.since when

Going after states (AZ lawsuit) for upholding Federal law (immigration) -10th Amendment.states were the ones in violation of Constitution

Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4.you're joking right? Vietnam ring a bell? Grenada was an actual invasion, for crying out loud.

With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.sadly, completely authorized by Patriot act, courtesy of GWBush and to my mind unconstitutional act of Congress

The Senate/Obama immigration bill (approved by both) raises revenue – Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;except that the details of revenue were purposefully left out, for just that reason


and I expect you to dispute each of them individually.

I have to admit, I couldn't resist. Sorry, all, if this took too much space. My comments in red.

CUDA, most of what you cite, by the way, is exemplar of what is called the Imperial Presidency, which has been in ongoing development since Nixon. Now, you are in good company objecting to it, but it HAS been upheld, repeatedly, by the courts, and accepted by several Congresses. Most hardcore liberals of my acquaintance despise the strong Presidency, mostly on foreign policy and free-speech grounds, so perhaps you wish to re-think that whole Conservative thing.

Sorry you are missing 6

CUDA wrote:Sorry you are missing 6

those 6(I thought it was only 5, but accept your count) were so nebulous and/or still in flux as to not be able to sort out without a lot of verbiage. Look, CUDA, the bottom line is what I stated above. Much of what you cite is Congressional in origin, the rest is emblematic of the massive power of the modern Presidency. Don't like it? Go hang with the Progressives and paint up some protest signs. But, seriously, impeachable? That's a joke. Unconstitutional? Not that any court has ruled, and you know as well as I that a court would be hearing the case were it even close to contentious.

Now, CUDA, my question to you would be, why did you choose to veer off on this tangent, when it has utterly nothing to do with the topic?

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea….to hell with the principal….

meaning what, exactly?

Playing dumb...how quaint.

The "principal" as in the actual amount borrowed...you keep ignoring this little detail with that comment on the interest being low.

You still have to pay back the principal, regardless of how low the interest is, it wouldn’t matter if it was 0 if you are already in over your head.

callmeslick wrote:Now, CUDA, my question to you would be, why did you choose to veer off on this tangent, when it has utterly nothing to do with the topic?

Those clowns were sworn to act in the best interests of the United States, and they clearly had no intention of doing so.

many feel the same way about this administration.

Only a partisan would so that this is a one sided deal. OH YA!!!!! that's right a partisan DID say that

Yeah man trying to do something about our godawful healthcare system is totally against the best interests of the country.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Noting you have never run a business, the big thing you are missing is...without showing a profit every now and then, you'll find your ability to borrow becomes either non-existent or you pay a much higher interest rate. This is why business's go broke.

Profit is not the goal of a national economy, which can control both revenue and spending.

Instead of the word profit, one needs to use the term "surplus" when speaking of the govt. If the govt. is run responsibly that surplus can grow large enough it could pay a "dividend" back to the share holders, i.e. the taxpayer.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yea….to hell with the principal….

meaning what, exactly?

Playing dumb...how quaint.

The "principal" as in the actual amount borrowed...you keep ignoring this little detail with that comment on the interest being low.

You still have to pay back the principal, regardless of how low the interest is, it wouldn’t matter if it was 0 if you are already in over your head.

of course, you pay the principal......that's basic finance. So what?

I just read an article in Forbes, with a chart of governmental spending by Presidents. Guess who is the lowest discretionary spender since Roosevelt?

callmeslick wrote:I just read an article in Forbes, with a chart of governmental spending by Presidents. Guess who is the lowest discretionary spender since Roosevelt?

Guess who should of read a more recent edition of Forbes:

"On May 24, 2012, Rick Ungar told the readers at Forbes.com that President Barack Obama “is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.” "

"This is factually incorrect." (Peter Ferrara )

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... d-history/

Nice try slick. Next time try a simple google search instead of using those talking points the DNC sends you.

the DNC isn't in contact with me.........I was just looking through business articles and blundered across it. Why do you people cry 'DNC' when I present something you don't agree with? Sorta lame, don't you think?

Oh, and the analysis you posted is beyond wrong, it is idiotic. Simply because the 2009 House/Senate came in doesn't mean that 2009 spending wasn't completely dictacted(more so than most, in fact, thanks to the ongoing stimulus) by the prior administration.
Thus, I will stand by the 2012 analysis. Obama is the smallest spender since Roosevelt.

Since you worked all those years as a Democratic fund raiser I just naturally assumed you were on the DNC mailing list. And kudos for admitting your error.

callmeslick wrote:the DNC isn't in contact with me.........I was just looking through business articles and blundered across it. Why do you people cry 'DNC' when I present something you don't agree with? Sorta lame, don't you think?

Oh, and the analysis you posted is beyond wrong, it is idiotic. Simply because the 2009 House/Senate came in doesn't mean that 2009 spending wasn't completely dictacted(more so than most, in fact, thanks to the ongoing stimulus) by the prior administration.
Thus, I will stand by the 2012 analysis. Obama is the smallest spender since Roosevelt.

So now you are saying Forbes prints idiotic articles. As such the one you read is equally idiotic. Man, you really have a knack for coming across as a blindly partisan hack. I take back my Kudos comment.

woodchip wrote:Since you worked all those years as a Democratic fund raiser I just naturally assumed you were on the DNC mailing list. And kudos for admitting your error.

I resist ANY mailing lists, by and large. Further, to my knowledge, there is no 'DNC mailing list' of 'talking points' that I was ever aware of. I have always raised money, by the way, for CANDIDATES, not for party organizations. In so doing, there are probably a half-dozen Republicans over the years that got checks from me. Two are still in office in PA, and believe me, they have heard about their likelihood of ever seeing another dime after the present debacle.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the DNC isn't in contact with me.........I was just looking through business articles and blundered across it. Why do you people cry 'DNC' when I present something you don't agree with? Sorta lame, don't you think?

Oh, and the analysis you posted is beyond wrong, it is idiotic. Simply because the 2009 House/Senate came in doesn't mean that 2009 spending wasn't completely dictacted(more so than most, in fact, thanks to the ongoing stimulus) by the prior administration.
Thus, I will stand by the 2012 analysis. Obama is the smallest spender since Roosevelt.

So now you are saying Forbes prints idiotic articles. As such the one you read is equally idiotic. Man, you really have a knack for coming across as a blindly partisan hack. I take back my Kudos comment.

no, I am saying that gentlemen(who isn't an investigative writer, he was a commentary writer) gave an obviously flawed analysis. Read his words, and read the initial article. Unless you are blinded by Obama-hate or some other ideology, it is clear which writer had the facts right.