Utopia Talk / Politics / Is It Time

Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 08:46:30 for a businessman to run the country? DISCUSS.
Aeros Member	Fri Feb 11 08:58:02 Donald Trump will not be elected Rod.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 09:02:48 It is a generic question. There is at least one other businessman considering running. My point is that politicians have failed miserably and Generals have not done much better. My question is, could *A* businessman do a better job.
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Feb 11 09:45:43 What, only two years after the last businessman run US into the ground? What did they used to call Bush? "MBA president"?
dakyron Member	Fri Feb 11 09:47:39 OK, CR, maybe we should specify we want a SUCCESSFUL businessman.
Dickhead UPer Member	Fri Feb 11 09:50:27 Seriously, who did you think Bush Sr, and GWB were?
ehcks Member	Fri Feb 11 10:01:42 Do you mean Ross Perot?
Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 10:01:53 They were politicians just prior to becoming presidents. dak is right, I should have qualified it. I meant a no nonsense businessman that will run the country like a business. And if that isn't clear, what I am saying is it needs to show a "profit" so we can start paying down the national debt.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 10:07:23 ehcks - Do you mean Ross Perot? I guess you missed this. "It is a generic question. There is at least one other businessman considering running. My point is that politicians have failed miserably and Generals have not done much better. My question is, could *A* businessman do a better job."
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Feb 11 10:10:18 They were politicians just prior to becoming presidents. dak is right, I should have qualified it. I meant a no nonsense businessman that will run the country like a business. " Like taking away your Social Security and health care because it is not profitable? Would that be running the country like a business?
Dickhead UPer Member	Fri Feb 11 10:10:48 "They were politicians just prior to becoming presidents." False. Learn history.
Dickhead UPer Member	Fri Feb 11 10:12:10 They started as businessmen, furthermore, if we are to go back your standard that they were "politicians just prior..." it would disqualify anyone who gets into politics to become whatever.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 10:14:56 CR, this is not about me. If you don't want to comment on the subject, kindly observe. dick, Funny, I thought Sr. was VP *just* before he became president and Jr. was a governor *just* before he became president.
Dickhead UPer Member	Fri Feb 11 10:20:06 As they were businessmen before anything. You wanted a businessmen as president, I guess they figure being business would qualify them to be into politics, which ultimately led them to become President. "Is it time for a businessman to run the country? That is your question correct? Well, there are two examples for you.
milton bradley Member	Fri Feb 11 10:22:07 didnt half of Bush's inner circle come from the corporate world?
CrownRoyal Member	Fri Feb 11 10:45:00 CR, this is not about me. If you don't want to comment on the subject, kindly observe. " Of course, it isn't about you, you pompous dick. You are not the only one on SS or Medicaid. What an ego.
jergul Member	Fri Feb 11 10:55:20 "I should have qualified it. I meant a no nonsense businessman that will run the country like a business." You mean print money and take up debt like crazy. Use the money in leveraged deals to take over inflation proof companies? Rinse-repeat until inflation erodes debt value, then rinse repeat again. The business would become the largest in the world quite fast. With a significant marketshare in everything. So basically you think Government should perhaps own the means of production Hot Rod?
Rugian Member	Fri Feb 11 11:18:08 The last general to serve as president was Eisenhower. While military service alone doesn't make someone qualified to be president, I don't see how they've come up short recently either.
Hot Rod Member	Fri Feb 11 15:57:21 CR - Of course, it isn't about you... CR - Like taking away >>>>>your<<<<< Social Security and health care...
MrPresident07 Member	Fri Feb 11 16:12:17 Yes it is.
Madc0w Member	Fri Feb 11 19:36:00 The United States government is different from a private business. Being a successful CEO who inherited a fortune does not equate to being a good president.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Feb 11 19:45:27 How come no one think we need an engineer to run this country? The CEOs have caused a recession and then rewarded themselves with "bonuses," why would you want them to run this country?
Tragically Hip Member	Fri Feb 11 19:55:11 Yeah, a country isn't a business and shouldn't be run like one. The presidency should go to whoever the people feel is most qualified for the job.
werewolf dictator Member	Fri Feb 11 19:55:35 http://en....he_United_States_by_occupation name presidents who was 'businessmen'.. [is slave plantation business.. or newspaper media.. or law firm..] if there arent many besides bush[s].. and usa has bad not businessmen presidents for 200+ years..america must be one of worlds worst nations..
Milton Bradley Member	Fri Feb 11 19:57:16 We'll elect a worthless affirmative action negro with zero accomplishments, but not a businessman...NOT A BUSINESSMAN!!! Ok.
Madc0w Member	Fri Feb 11 20:19:05 Nobody's screaming that a businessman should by no means be elected, but there's no reason a businessman is eminently qualified to be president. Your logic sucks.
miltonfriedman Member	Fri Feb 11 21:33:36 If the business person has good ideas and has has solutions to many of the problems we are facing right now, then this person ought to get elected, regardless of his/her employment background. But this is not the same as saying we need a business person to run this country.
Tragically Hip Member	Fri Feb 11 21:54:07 Nice work on the gender neutral language, MF.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 06:02:10 CR - Of course, it isn't about you... CR - Like taking away >>>>>your<<<<< Social Security and health care... " Well, yours will be taken away too, I don't see how that can be avoided, if the businessman-president axes the programs for everybody. But we can pretend that you, alone, won't be affected, just everybody else. So, would you support such a move, I mean, country would be run like a business.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 06:05:59 The will not axe those kinds of programs, they will be phased out as well they should be. They have proved themselves to be unworkable in the long run.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 06:10:04 "Almost two out of three seniors and 70 percent of people with disabilities rely on Social Security for half or more of their income, and one-third of seniors get 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security. " Boy, I sure hope you die by the time the programs are eliminated. Wouldn't want to see you begging for food on the street.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 06:11:19 Please look up what 'phased out' means.
milton bradley Member	Sat Feb 12 06:12:20 "The will not axe those kinds of programs, they will be phased out as well they should be. " "just as long as it doesnt happen to me, Im fine with it. In fact, I WANT it to happen to the generation coming after me. Just not to me." * Fixed
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 06:17:19 "phased out" means your hungry ass on a corner, begging and crying. Certainly not posting in here and watching Fox for hours, daily, you useless, retarded leech. From what I know about you, there is no way you would be able to earn and save enough to live without govt assistance, in your old age. Even if you had never paid a penny in payroll taxes, for SS.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 06:25:54 CR, You sound like you are drunk again, come back when you are sober and able to discuss rationally.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 06:29:33 CR Dont you agree? From an oil-industry perspective. What would you do as a businessman with unlimited credit and the ability to print money? Taking over the world seems like a good idea. Who gives a rats ass about minor expenses like the DOD? Well....Goverment Cancels all contracts with BOEING. BOEING stocks plummet. Government Buys a hunk of BOEING. Goverment renews all contracts with boeing. Hurrah Government.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 06:30:26 Reality bites, I know. Also, unfortunately for the US, the country is full of Rod-type leeches. So, about running US like a business, dream on.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 06:33:03 What would you do as a businessman with unlimited credit and the ability to print money? " Hard to say, I was always a reluctant leader. But you gotta spread the wealth to succeed, always. That much I know.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 06:37:37 Good beans. Am btw putting together a concept for unnamed fisheries department with aim of squeezing oil gas companies for billions based on "implicit risk". Should generate more cash than silly fishing ever will. You would be proud.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 07:41:32 jergul, many folks accept the theory that every individual is capable of committing murder. Why don't you put together a proposal charging everyone a fee based on the "implicit risk" that they *MAY* commit murder someday?
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 07:47:04 Like taxes that go to pay for police, detectives, courts or something?
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 07:53:50 ERR... CR, That is for crimes that have been committed. I'm suggesting charging a fee for crimes that *MAY BE* committed. Just as jergul wants to shakedown the gas companies for something that *MAY* go wrong.
CrownRoyal Member	Sat Feb 12 07:55:17 CR, That is for crimes that have been committed" Incorrect. They get paid even if no crimes were committed.
Allahuakbar Member	Sat Feb 12 08:07:14 Richard Fuld, he is the best you have.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 08:30:53 Hot Rod Structured more like a mandatory insurance scheme for companies wanting to drill in areas currently closed to drilling. Companies are quite free not to drill there, but block assignment conditional on paying what fees the State determines should be paid. The kicker is really more that the funds be dedicated a certain department within the State in return for it not opposing opening areas. You got to spread the wealth to succeed remember. I am just designing a strategy for a would be spreadee.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 09:57:45 I believe we already do that by requiring insurance to cover spills. However, the amount of the insurance is woefully inadequate and needs to be raised substantially. Unless your idea is to replace the insurance companies, in that case the government would be responsible for *ALL COSTS* involved in a spill. Is that what you want? Or do you plan on the government pocketing the fees to pay for more welfare programs while still forcing the companies to pay for spills?
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 10:15:10 Hot Rod Actually you go with limited liability. Then threaten with lawsuits after the fact to increase 50 million liability caps to 50 billion dollars in suggested payments. The idea is that fisheries interests support oil drilling in return for cash. Its not really that hard to understand.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 10:32:39 Sometimes you are really hard to understand Hot Rod. Run Government like a business. Ok. Government can borrow trillions of dollars at negative costs (interest paid is lower than inflation levels). That money can be used to buy up ownership in companies that pay positive dividends after inflation. A no brainer. Particularly as the Government is a huge customer of goods and services, so can use that to deflate equity values before purchasing stocks. Or simply take over the companies when they fail to cashflow issues like during the crisis. A businessman running Government like a company would effectively nationalize huge chunks of the economy. You really want that? On the other side - Government also controls lots of stuff companies want and can set the terms for giving companies access. Up to the companies if they accept of not. Where is the problem? I know of course. You think that Government should give away its assets for free. Now who in their right mind would run a business like that?
Milton Bradley Member	Sat Feb 12 10:53:27 I wonder what a businessman would do with all those SS funds?
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 10:54:53 Why do you guys always head for La La Land at the first sign of a different suggestion. Obviously I am not talking about nationalizing businesses or manipulating markets to make profits for the government. That is just plain silly. What I was referring to is a businessman attacking waste and redundancies. Government does too much and the greatest majority of it is unnecessary and unproductive. I would like to see a businessman cut that waste and start paying down the national debt. Obviously politicians are not interested in doing so.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 11:10:48 Why is it silly for a businessman to turn Government into a successful business? He would start by looking at competitive advantages and take if from there. If forced to look at waste and redundancy, then the DoD is the obvious candidate for massive reductions. But given that money is not an issue, then looking at expansion is of course much more important than any cutbacks. Paying down debt when borrowing is free is of course insane from a business perspective. So obviously you don't want a businessman in charge. I am glad we could answer your question. From your perspective, the last thing you want is a businessman to run government like a business.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Feb 12 11:21:09 You did not answer my question, but you did succeed in making a fool of yourself. You have a nice evening.
W Member	Sat Feb 12 11:22:08 Says the fool who thinks the US has never been ran by a businessman before.
jergul Member	Sat Feb 12 11:31:07 I did answer the question. You dont want a businessman. My best guess is that you want an entertainer. Preferably an entertainer currently on a Fox contract.
JNH Member	Sat Feb 12 11:53:41 "I would like to see a businessman cut that waste and start paying down the national debt." You could have an engineer to streamline processes, cut waste etc. A businessman would see USofA Corp. as a part of the businessman's business group. USofA Corp. would have monopoly in the taxation business, but a huge difficulty of paying a "fair" compensation to the successful management. USofA Corp. as an acquisition would offer huge opportunities though. USofA Corp. has massive amount of funds to burn in all kinds of government projects which can be awarded to "suitable" suppliers for "efficiency". The government funds would end up funneled to holding companies in tax havens. Holding companies that by pure coincidence happen to be owned by the businessman and his buddies while being protected from having to spend a cent to fund those government projects.
miltonfriedman Member	Sat Feb 12 12:10:32 You want to get people who know how to solve a problem to become president? Then elect an engineer, not a businessperson.
jergul Member	Mon Feb 14 06:11:16 *delete* You know, the spammer may simply be an elaborate way of topping relevant threads and could thus be considered a community service more than a pest.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Feb 14 06:16:35 Well he is the problem of the forum now. I am tired of reporting him when no one seems to care. Please *DO NOT* translate that to mean I want my threads deleted. I *DO NOT* want my threads deleted.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Feb 14 06:18:03 Rod, just state if you want your threads deleted. So there is no misunderstanding and whining.
milton bradley Member	Mon Feb 14 06:18:11 That would be so easy to mistranslate if one reads hurriedly.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Feb 14 06:20:49 Then slow down and read it as if you had some intelligence.
CrownRoyal Member	Mon Feb 14 06:23:04 Would it kill you to be a little more precise?
jergul Member	Mon Feb 14 06:23:04 I deleted the spammers post after he topped this thread as a community service Hot Rod.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Feb 14 06:28:48 CR, that is the best I can do in English. I can't speak third world.
milton bradley Member	Mon Feb 14 06:33:12 Strange, since you think in third world.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: