Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Let's run government like a business

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 16, 2011, 11:55 a.m. EST by tedscrat (-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I was that nut who listed the 4 points to make America better. I guess I was off :) I would still like to see the flat tax and government reductions. If the government reduction could take place, then perhaps some deficit spending would be exceptable. If there was a guarantee on return. I was reminded by flip about some issues that have given me pause to ponder.
It has been said that government can't be run like a business. Why not? A well-oiled machine that knew where every dollar was going has a much greater chance of coming out in the black. If a little more money was spent for a couple of years shoring up employment or infrastructure improvement, then that should provide a very good opportunity to bring back returns in the future. Washington DC simply cannot go apeshit in the process and throw money out into the wind. Unfortunately, that is what is happening now. The battle has been, generally speaking, taking from the rich and giving it to the less fortunate. I will never agree to that principle, but I am not heartless. People out there who are smarter than myself could probable spell out in better terms what I am trying to say.



Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

The purpose of government is not to "come out in the black".

Running government like business (or to be more precise - government being run BY business) is why this country (and the world) are in the shit.

If you want to know the purpose of government, read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Government is supposed to protect citizens, not exploit them for profit.

I am barely resisting the urge to reach through the internet and slap some sense in to the brain-dead morons that post such drivel here.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

I keep getting my elbow stuck in my modem. I hope to figure a way around it soon.

[-] -1 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 10 years ago

Lets just bar the doors to the the white house for a while and the rest of the world will keep on running and so will we. Maybe we don't need a single leader in this country. I'm thinking 3 poor basterds can push the buttons on the big bombs same as one cat can. In reality that's how we do it by strong arming all the other countries into doing what we want them to do anyway. Hell we are further in debt than a lot of them. How do we do it.

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

You can try if you like. Back when the role of government was simply to protect its citizens from evil tyranny, things were a lot simpler. We have 2 choices right now. We can strip government back to its original purpose. Or we can swallow the fact that government has a lot more uses now and at least try to run it efficiently

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

Follow the money. It will answer all your questions.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Hmm. If we keep the three branches of government, then the judiciary branch would be tasked with keeping the other 2 branches honest?

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

Since you now agree that running government like a business (for profit) is an absurd concept and the exact opposite of its real purpose, we can move on.

The judiciary has overstepped it's authority. Nine people should not have lifetime appointments or the ability to determine constitutional matters and national policy.

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Actually, I have not discounted the idea of running government like a business. Isn't a business model needed with a government 15 trillion in the red. An honest business will follow honest practices to achieve its goals. And the gallery of nine is the very last line to a long, convoluted justice system. That branch needs to be streamlined like the other two branches

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 10 years ago

Wouldn't that depend on the integrity of the judges?

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Yep. Just like the proper running of Congress and Executive would depend on the integrity of those officials.

[-] 1 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 10 years ago

"the role of government was simply to protect its citizens from evil tyranny"

That hasn't worked out so well, has it?

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

one can say with a lot of certainty that a fair amount has happened over the past 240 years :) We need to find a way to at least follow some of the founding father's principles.

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

"Let's run the government like a business"

You mean a dictatorship?

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

If one implies that all businesses are dictatorships, then no. But you know as well as I that that is not the case. So let's look at some successful models of business and procede from there.

[-] 3 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

"If one implies that all businesses are dictatorships, then no"

Okay, what business isn't a dictatorship?

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

A dictatorship will crush any and all opposition that gets in the way of its agenda. many businesses have to run on a premise that its employess have good ideas and that these ideas can be spread around and looked at.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

So let me think... Google... that's it.

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

I work in a small business. Basic decisions need to be made and followed in order to keep it running. Same holds true for a large business, or government. I am a pharmacist, not a businessman. However, I am inclined to still believe that government needs to be streamlined and more productive. Nothing, I mean NOTHING, is too big to fall if it does not keep up with the current situation

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Your streamlining is what is failing. You do not McDonaldize services. This is the part that you don't get.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

I hope the government doesn't run like McDonalds. lol.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

A lot of parts at different levels do not. However, once those with business interests enter into the game, especially when you have the ALEC in there-it isn't from lack of trying.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Sigh, Look, I fail to understand what is substantially wrong with the notion of streamlining. Disaster funds, unemployment funds, etc. etc. etc all require money that can be built up over time for use during emergencies. Of course no one can predict what degree of services will be needed for what month. The idea of having more money that you need is better than having to run up a debt and cut back on services anyway

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

You don't even know what part of government does what. That is the saddest shit I have ever seen. :/ You don't even know what your streamlining or faux privatization problems currently are and YET you still think that business could do it better. YOU ARE FAILING NOW.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

No. We do not run government like a business. In fact, areas where there have been faux privatization it has actually been more costly and less effective. Some things are not for profit. No, we don't need a "business clown" to control certain aspects.

[-] -2 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Why not? I am not saying give the department heads bonuses, but has anyone heard of a budget surplus for the years when there might be a recession?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Because many branches of government at Federal, State, County, local are about people and not profit. That is why. Those functions that have been turned over to the private sector are actually more about ripping off tax payers then functioning. That's why.

[-] -3 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

The public sector contracts the the private sector, because they feel it will save money. The private sector rips off the government and therefore costs more money. No doubt, but the system as is is not sustainable. Even the best charities cannot stay open if they do not bring in more money then they spend. A business approach has to be at least attempted.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Fun Fact: charities receive funding from our taxes. 2/3 of funding for the Catholic Charities comes from our tax dollars. They aren't the only one. So the first thing we can do is stop funding religious organizations.

Fun Fact: Most hospitals do not pay property taxes. Yet, wish to pick and choose who receives what treatment.

Fun Fact: Testing companies for standardized tests (one of which also makes text books) does not pay taxes because they fall under "Education".

No, we do not need one more wanna be businessman in government. Period.

[-] -3 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

This brings me back to one of the fundamental ideas. flat tax. no loopholes. Make churches and hospitals pay property tax. Or make no one pay property tax. Ideally, a flat tax combined with a consumption tax needs to meet the needs of the government.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Flat tax is not appropriate. A progressive tax is appropriate.

A flat tax is harder on those that make less. And your pizza man didn't think out his 9-9-9 plan too carefully which would have screwed smaller businesses.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Must confess, didn't read the 9-9-9 plan. That aside. Will a low income person have to budget less with a progressive tax than they would with a flat tax? A flat tax will take a lot of pull out of government. with no tax loopholes or tax credits to pass around, that will hopefull go a long way to bringing the cost of running things down.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

You didn't read the 9-9-9 plan and you support Cain? LOL What a fucking idiot. No wonder this country is in deep shit.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

I would be an idiot if I had voted and didn't read the 9-9-9 plan. Florida's primary is months away and therefore I still have the luxury of doing my research. Best to wait for the dust to settle with all the crap flying around about each candidate before making the final decision

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

You hit them with a flat tax and they will pay more out.

People want something simple that they can understand and this is what makes the flat tax so appealing. Unfortunately, the progressive tax system is the way to go.

[-] -1 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Make a tax progressive and you open the way for wheeling and dealing and influence peddling in the halls of congress. Unless you can ensure, short of a constitutional ammendment, that the progressive tax is concrete and no more than 5% separates the lowest bracket than the highest bracket, then the flat tax is the only other option.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

The flat tax won't get it. Period.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

OK. Tell me why? Let's write some numbers down. If you have knowledge of income demographics in this country, then it should be relatively easy. Look at the numbers. Combine them with a set of government cuts, and things look a little bit better. Poor get hurt? Are the poor any less hurt in the system we have now? Would tax revenues go down? I do not know, but the same factors that alter tax receipts under the current system should still influence tax receipts under a flat tax.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Flat tax proponents do not get rid of deductions (mortgage interest deductions). Capital gains are taxed at a lower percent (15%). It raises the taxes on the poorest of society and lowers them on the rich. Go back to pre-Reagan taxes. Secondly, I have no doubts that the government cuts are towards those that need those services. This is shit all the way around.

We are currently in what is called income brackets and so to an extent they are already flat in those brackets.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Take out deductions and loopholes. All of them. The tax code should be 1 page long. Without deductions and loopholes, everyone pays taxes. And, as the argument here goes, a lot of the wealthy do not pay taxes. Well, a flat tax necessitated that everyone who owns a mansion as well as everyone who rents a doublewide pay taxes

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

You are intentionally oversimplifying it. Pre-Reagan taxes solve the problems. Now, that your pizza man is out you should read up on 9-9-9.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

No tax exemption for churches. 100% tax exemption for medical services with outcome-based pay.

Flat tax is regressive, restore pre-Reagan tax rates and we'll have pre-Reagan economic growth, the ability to rebuild the national infrastructure and pay off the national debt. Just like we did from 1945-1970's.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

The Failed Promise of Prison Privatization Publication Date: 10/6/2011 Author Information Richard Culp, Ph.D. Prison Legal News We have been experimenting with prison privatization in the U.S. now for over twenty-five years. The privatization idea originated out of a notion that the private sector, with its competition-driven efficiency and innovation, could operate prisons of higher quality and lower cost than the public sector. Create a market for incarceration services, the argument ran, and the market will work its magic, improving prison conditions and rehabilitative outcomes while saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. That market has effectively been created over the past quarter century and we have now arrived at a place where prison privatization has been studied extensively and evaluated rigorously.

Although hyperbole continues to propel prison privatization policy along, research findings are incontrovertible: even in the best private prisons, quality of prisoner care is no better than in public prisons and the cost advantage of privatization, which initially accounted for minimal savings, is steadily eroding as the private prison industry matures. The big promises of prison privatization - less cost, higher quality - have simply not materialized. Despite these disappointing results, prison privatization advocacy maintains traction in diverse jurisdictions as policymakers from Ohio to Florida and from Maine to California seek expedient solutions to budget shortfalls triggered by a lingering great recession.

In retrospect, it should come as no surprise that prison privatization would fail to live up to its promises. There are several reasons for this. First, free market solutions to social problems like crime assume, after all, that there are "free" markets for appropriate services. However, there is no such thing as a natural market for the services provided by private prison companies. On the contrary, the marketplace for incarceration services is created by the government, for the government. It is an artificial market. Many of the services that have been privatized by government (e.g., custodial services, food preparation, medical care) are provided by the private sector independently of the government's decision to privatize or not. There is a free market analogue for many kinds of services that governments routinely provide. Other fields such as education and health care, for example, have an active market of existing nonprofit and for-profit providers willing to sell educational and healthcare services to a huge market of potential buyers that includes both individuals and governments.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone - to hold a person against his or her will - is a defining characteristic of the state. The government holds a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force and the power to incarcerate. Only the government has the legitimate power to restrict a citizen's liberty; individuals are prohibited by law from incarcerating another person under "false imprisonment" statutes. The government can delegate this power on a limited basis - for example, "shopkeeper's privilege" allows merchants to temporarily detain suspected shoplifters. But long-term incarceration is a different matter. The only potential buyers who can legally purchase incarceration services are the government jurisdictions that have custody over indicted, convicted or detained persons. In order to privatize its incarceration function, the government has had to create a market since one does not and cannot exist without its direct intervention.

Secondly, the development of the private prison industry has resulted in a highly concentrated producer market where only four companies control over 90% of the incarceration services business. Economic theory tells us that when production is highly concentrated in very few companies, the market becomes an oligopoly, a market situation that is inherently less competitive and innovative than a market with more broad-based representation. An oligopoly is characterized by interdependence, avoidance of competition and a rigid attachment to the status quo among the leading firms.

A third part of the story is that government itself unwittingly stifles innovation in the private prison industry. Since the only legitimate customers of prison companies are the jurisdictions that can indict, convict or otherwise detain people, the potential customer base for incarceration services is very limited. In practice, this has led to a situation where only a handful of customers, an oligopsony in economic terms, has come to dominate the customer base. The limited number of customers serves to dissuade private prison companies from conducting research and development into innovative correctional programming, as the tiny customer base tends to demand only those services that mimic what the governments themselves are accustomed to providing.

Origins of the Artificial Market

Contracting out of noncustodial prison services such as medical care, food service, maintenance, education and mental health services has been practiced for a long time and with little controversy. Contracting out of custody services, for which there is no free market analogue, is much more controversial. The deinstitutionalization movement in juvenile corrections during the 1970s initiated a number of experiments in privatized services and custody for juveniles. A major step toward contracted custody of adults occurred when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the forerunner to today's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), decided in 1983 to partially outsource the detention of undocumented immigrants in its custody. In the summer of 1983, the INS issued a request for proposals and the newly-formed Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) submitted the winning bid.

Likewise, the community corrections movement in the adult system involved contracting out of the custody function in many low-security adult facilities. Minnesota passed the Community Corrections Act in 1971, and 25 states followed suit with similar legislation over the next 12 years. Community corrections legislation transferred funding from state-level departments of correction to local governments which, in turn, used the funds for halfway house programs and other services for lower-level offenders. Many jurisdictions turned to private contractors to operate these facilities.

In 1986, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) secured a contract to operate a community corrections facility in Eagle Mountain, California. Also in 1986, the State of Kentucky contracted out the development and operation of a 200-bed minimum-security facility in Marion County. Another newly-formed company, the U.S. Corrections Corporation, was awarded the contract. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) began contracting out the operation of low-security halfway house programs to the private sector during this time. Another early private prison company, Correctional Services Corporation, originally Esmor Correctional Corp., began business in 1989 with two contracts from the BOP to operate halfway houses in New York City.

READ MORE HERE: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/article/failed-promise-prison-privatization

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 10 years ago

That was the cry during the Carter administration. But government misheard, rather than having a government run “like a big business” they thought America had requested a government run BY big business!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

And yet another privatization fiasco:

Indiana's bumpy road to privatization After the private sector took over the state's public assistance program, services were disrupted while politically connected firms benefited. The state's experience underscores the risks of such handoffs — and the issue is likely to persist nationwide. June 24, 2011|By Matea Gold, Melanie Mason and Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Reporting from Indianapolis — Louise Cohoon was at home when her 80-year-old mother called in a panic from Terre Haute: The $97 monthly Medicaid payment she relied on to supplement her $600-a-month income had been cut without warning by a private company that had taken over the state's welfare system.

Later, the state explained why: She failed to call into an eligibility hot line on a day in 2008 when she was hospitalized for congestive heart failure.

"I thought the news was going to kill my mother, she was so upset," said Cohoon, 63. Her mother had to get by on support from cash-strapped relatives for months until the state restored her benefits under pressure from Legal Services attorneys.

Cohoon's mother, now suffering from Alzheimer's disease, was one of thousands of Indiana residents who abruptly and erroneously lost their welfare, Medicaid or food stamp benefits after Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels privatized the state's public assistance program — the result of an efficiency plan that went awry from the very beginning, the state now admits.

Though the $1.37-billion project proved disastrous for many of the state's poor, elderly and disabled, it was a financial bonanza for a handful of firms with ties to Daniels and his political allies, which landed state contracts worth millions.

The disparate effects underscore the risks of handing control over public services to the private sector. Whether the approach will ultimately improve services and save money remains a matter of fierce debate in Indiana. But the state's experience shows that without adequate safeguards, privatization can compound the very problems it is designed to correct: bureaucratic burdens, perceptions of influence-peddling and a lack of competition.

It's an issue that is likely to persist, as Republicans in statehouses nationwide turn to private companies as they seek to shrink government and weaken the hold of public-sector unions. One of the main proponents has been Daniels, who privatized a prison and a major toll road and sought unsuccessfully to lease out the state lottery, cultivating a reputation for fiscal discipline that led major party figures to urge him to run for president in 2012. He recently declined, but retains considerable influence in his party.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is seeking to privatize aspects of his state's welfare programs, much as Daniels did — an idea that has drawn warnings from federal officials who noted the problems Indiana encountered.

Critics say that in Indiana, the privatization process barreled forward with little public input and was marred by the appearance of conflicts of interest. Despite the massive nature of the changes he was proposing, Daniels insisted he did not need legislative approval. And the only public hearing occurred after he announced he would proceed with the project.

Key players involved in the process had ties to Affiliated Computer Services, the company that benefited the most from the deal. Mitch Roob — a Daniels appointee who ran the state's Family and Social Services Administration when it awarded the contract — was a former ACS vice president. As the state began the project, Roob occasionally sought advice from former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, a political ally of Daniels and fellow privatization advocate who also had been an ACS vice president.

John Donahue, who studies public sector reform at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, said even the appearance of too-cozy contracting ties can taint a well-intentioned privatization effort.

"Contractual hygiene is pretty important," said Donahue, formerly an assistant secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. "People tend to be paranoid about conflicts of interest, and for good reason."

In a brief interview, Daniels called "completely bogus" the suggestion that his administration was too close to companies that won lucrative contracts.

"There is no evidence of that," he said. "Our approach was either firms perform well — or we will get rid of them and try someone else."

Yet it took two years before the governor acknowledged that replacing caseworkers with centralized call centers "just didn't work." In October 2009, Daniels canceled a 10-year contract with an IBM-led consortium of companies that included ACS among its subcontractors. IBM and Indiana are now engaged in dueling lawsuits scheduled to go to trial next February.

After IBM was fired, ACS — which was blamed by welfare advocates for many of the problems — was given a new eight-year contract worth $638 million to continue its work, according to state records.

All told, three politically connected firms gained from the welfare privatization effort in Indiana: ACS; the Lucas Group, a Boston-based firm that wrote the specifications for the contract; and Barnes & Thornburg, the Indianapolis law firm that lobbies for ACS and is representing the state in its suit against IBM.

MUCH MORE TO READ HERE: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/24/nation/la-na-indiana-privatize-20110624

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Let's see how government-like-a-business works out: State’s child, family welfare reforms collapse by George Lauby (North Platte Bulletin) - 10/1/2011

First, three top private companies backed out of their deals to provide child and family welfare services in Nebraska.

Second, the Nebraska State Auditor found severe financial problems with the two-year-old “privatized” program.

Third, the man at the top resigned.

That was how a sweeping state welfare reform collapsed in just two years.

Director Todd Reckling announced his resignation one week after a state audit of the program’s finances reported serious problems.

Reckling, 44, said he is resigning for health reasons effective Oct. 14. Already thin, he had been losing weight, coworkers told an Omaha news reporter.

Reckling was in charge of Nebraska’s controversial child welfare privatization, which put the child welfare system in the hands of five privately-owned "lead" agencies.

The system-wide reform was aimed at decreasing the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services’s hand, while allowing the department to retain oversight.

The idea was capitalism and competition, with government supervision, would drive costs down while ensuring the quality of care stayed high.

It never worked in most of Nebraska.

Early on, trouble appeared. Only one company applied to lead the programs in central and western Nebraska, so there was no competition.

Small-scale group homes for vulnerable children were closed in western and central Nebraska, such as the Alliance Boys Ranch, North Platte’s Boy’s and Girl’s Home and two Salvation Army group homes.

When the North Platte group homes closed, employees told the Bulletin that the program was taking a giant step backward -- eliminating existing programs and moving already alienated children to new and strange places.

Officials, including Reckling, were reassuring. When the Salvation Army homes closed, officials said children would be cared for in an expanded Boys and Girls Home in North Platte, or in Cedars Home near Broken Bow.

But those homes closed too.

Finish reading here: http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=21588&pageID=3

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

What you state is troubling. I guess the fundamental question at hand is why can't the government run its affairs with less money and waste? I am not in favor of private contacting for its own sake, but I want the see size of government diminish.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

It depends a lot on who is doing what. I hear a lot about big government but the reality is that this has become nothing more than a RW meme. When we talk about "diminish" we need to carefully and precisely discuss what we are diminishing.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23620) 10 years ago

Let's not. A government is in no way, shape or form a business and should never be run like one. A business has employees and seeks to make a profit. A government has citizens who are human beings and seeks to promote their general welfare. Completely different.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

You realize you are proposing communism?

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Communism!!? Are you kidding me? Do you know what communism is and what it stood for. Personal freedoms were non-existent in communism!! The individual did not exist in communism, only the state!! Please ponder your statement and explain to me why you think this way.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

If you want government to work like a business, it would have to make money. So it would need to own the means of production. And a government that owns the means of production is the very definition of communism.

Don't blame me, it was your idea.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Any business outsources to get supplies or parts. This government is 15 trillion in debt and has not agreed on a budget in almost 20 years. Its "supercommittee" was a joke and there is no way to make it work on the current model in place. A government, run like a business, has to watch its expenditures. It has to be extremely careful where its money goes. What is wrong with profit? Like a business, the profits could go into the Federal treasury for the thin years.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

Because when you move into the realm of profit before people, depending on the service, it adds up to medication being denied OR over prescribed, or unqualified people brought in at minimum wage and this little term "liability".

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

Again, don't blame me. I'm just pointing out what your idea really means.

[-] 0 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Implying that what I am promoting is communism. I am not. What you are operating on is the premise that business and communism are one in the same. Please explain to me. In this new nation that I envision, everyone is free to own whatever private property they can get and earn as much money as they can. The government has to quit being the weight around our neck

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago
  • Implying that what I am promoting is communism.

I know it's not what you really want. But that's why the word business is not a very good choice for what you want.

[-] 0 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 10 years ago

have you ever met anyone in government? they have never run a business, never employed and wouldnt have the slightest clue

[-] -3 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

That is when you hire a businessman. I am sorry Herman Cain dropped out of the race

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

Stupid is as stupid does.

[-] 0 points by Frizzle (520) 10 years ago

I don't agree with his idea's either. But lets not call people stupid please. thank you.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 10 years ago

tedscrat said in a post above that he hasn'r read Cain's "9-9-9 plan".

Supporting a candidate without reading his plans and positions is stupid.

[-] 3 points by tedscrat (-96) 10 years ago

Support and voting are not the same. In the same vein, I can say I do not support Romney because of the fact that he implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts. I have not read about romneycare. Before I vote it is my responsibility to read everything that I can before casting my ballot. Supporters do not win people into office. Voters do.

[-] -2 points by REALamerican (241) 10 years ago

Lets run government the way it is supposed to be: small, constitutionalized, and conservative. Then life would be great!

[-] 2 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

no we need a big liberal problem solving government with stronger unions, free health care and education, guaranteed meaningful employment with a living wage, one month paid vacation, guaranteed safe housing, end corporate personhood, tax the rich, end regulatory capture, end lobbying, end and reverse privatization of government institutions, end corporate subsidies break up the banks legalize soft drugs decriminalize hard drugs, release all non violent drug offenders from prison, jail, probation, parole, end federally backed drug testing, expose the government and other conspirators who through conspiracies that hide truth and usurp democracy have lies and betrayed us all, end the police state

[-] 1 points by CurveOfBindingEnergy (165) 10 years ago

Don't forget to slash "defense" and military spending and end the military industrial complex.

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

and big pharma and big oil and mass agriculture and free education and training thanks!!!!

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 10 years ago

Wow. you are obviously not an american. Are you from France by chance? I cannot believe that any true American would believe this, not to mention such a socialist country could not exist. We ALREADY have serious money problems, how the hell do way pay for your fucked up idea of a government?

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

tax the rich i am from ny

[-] 0 points by REALamerican (241) 10 years ago

the rich are taxed! we have enough taxes, the problem is too much govt and too much spending. we are already taxed an outrageous amount at ALL levels.

[-] 0 points by avery724 (60) 10 years ago

where in nyc do you live?

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 10 years ago

i am currently live in memphis but i am from monticello ny