Is government a good business manager?

[stevenash]

GDP for the first quarter recently came in at a very disappointing rate and barely positive.  I am a great believer in the theory that too much government involvement hurts, rather than helps, our economy.  Here are some comments from a report I read today that might be of interest..

 Overall government transfers to persons were up 0.3% in March and are up 3.6% in the past year, largely driven by the Obamacare-related expansion of Medicaid. Before the Panic of 2008, government transfers – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, disability, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment comp – were roughly 14% of income. In early 2010, they peaked at 18.5%. Now they’re around 17%, but not falling any further. Redistribution hurts growth because it shifts resources away from productive ventures and, among those getting the transfers, weakens the incentive to produce. On the inflation front, the PCE deflator, the Fed’s favorite measure, increased

[77]

His agenda is right on track! "Rules for Radicals" 

[Hagar]

23 hours ago, stevenash said:

GDP for the first quarter recently came in at a very disappointing rate and barely positive.  I am a great believer in the theory that too much government involvement hurts, rather than helps, our economy.  Here are some comments from a report I read today that might be of interest..

 Overall government transfers to persons were up 0.3% in March and are up 3.6% in the past year, largely driven by the Obamacare-related expansion of Medicaid. Before the Panic of 2008, government transfers – Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, disability, welfare, food stamps, and unemployment comp – were roughly 14% of income. In early 2010, they peaked at 18.5%. Now they’re around 17%, but not falling any further. Redistribution hurts growth because it shifts resources away from productive ventures and, among those getting the transfers, weakens the incentive to produce. On the inflation front, the PCE deflator, the Fed’s favorite measure, increased

Lol, sn, you had me at the title.   

[stevenash]

Just hoping most will wake up and understand that the governments efforts and attempts to manage, tweak,, etc etc  U.S. businesses is totally counterproductive and understand that the real problem with our current economic climate cannot be blamed on George Bush.

[Hagar]

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Just hoping most will wake up and understand that the governments efforts and attempts to manage, tweak,, etc etc  U.S. businesses is totally counterproductive and understand that the real problem with our current economic climate cannot be blamed on George Bush.

I cannot imagine our Govt being able to help any business, unless you count green energy which they pour billions of dollars into - which creates several millionaires, and then goes broke.

[nappyroots]

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Just hoping most will wake up and understand that the governments efforts and attempts to manage, tweak,, etc etc  U.S. businesses is totally counterproductive and understand that the real problem with our current economic climate cannot be blamed on George Bush.

The republicans running in this years election make george bush look pretty d.... good

[stevenash]

13 minutes ago, nappyroots said:

The republicans running in this years election make george bush look pretty d.... good

Why not answer the question:  is the government a good manager?  Do we need more government involvement in our businesses?

[westend1]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Why not answer the question:  is the government a good manager?  Do we need more government involvement in our businesses?

Read "the Jungle",then decide what you think about government involvement.

[stevenash]

Sorry, not interested in a lecture about the utopian world as visualized by a Socialist.

[Englebert]

43 minutes ago, westend1 said:

Read "the Jungle",then decide what you think about government involvement.

The book was an example of one of the rare times the government does something good, although I feel the situation could have been handled more effectively without federal involvement. (I know that's debatable.) But for every one good thing the government does, you can list ten instances where the government over-reaches and uses their power to coerce and manipulate, or is just plain full of corruption and criminal mischief.

How about the couple in California that was bottling their own milk. Their neighbors thought that the milk was better than store-bought milk because it was straight from the cow, and persuaded the couple to sell the milk to them. The FDA then came in and confiscated every thing the couple owned, including the cows. No due process, no warning, no nothing. Left the couple homeless.

How about the couple that built their dream home. Had been saving their money all of their life. Bought a nice wooded lot. Got all of the permits and had their dream house built. The EPA later decided that the property was federally protected wetlands, and ordered the couple to tear down the house and restore the land to it's natural state...all at the expense of the homeowners. This was after the couple had paid for and received all of the necessary permits. The EPA started fining the couple $75,000 per day until the land was restored.

How about the couple that built their dream home in Colorado. Again, they paid for and received all necessary permits. The EPA decided two years after the house was built that the house was on land now deemed to be federally protected, and ordered the couple to tear down the $800,000 home at the owner's expense. But since the house was now on federally protected land, the EPA decided that the only access road to the house could not be used and must also be restored to it's natural state. So the homeowners were ordered to tear down their house and remove all the debris with no way of getting any equipment to the site, not even their own 4-wheelers. They were given one week to restore the land.

I could go on and on, rest a little while, then go on and on some more with examples of corruption and criminal behavior by various agencies of the federal government. Sometimes they do good things, many times they do not. I don't know of anyone that thinks government is not needed, but the government we have now is just overblown and is in need of serious reduction. This country was founded on the principle that the individual states have power to regulate, and the federal government was only for the common defense and to settle disputes between states. It is astonishing how that has changed. So reading "The Jungle" in today's context of the federal government is outdated.

[stevenash]

7 minutes ago, Englebert said:

The book was an example of one of the rare times the government does something good, although I feel the situation could have been handled more effectively without federal involvement. (I know that's debatable.) But for every one good thing the government does, you can list ten instances where the government over-reaches and uses their power to coerce and manipulate, or is just plain full of corruption and criminal mischief.

How about the couple in California that was bottling their own milk. Their neighbors thought that the milk was better than store-bought milk because it was straight from the cow, and persuaded the couple to sell the milk to them. The FDA then came in and confiscated every thing the couple owned, including the cows. No due process, no warning, no nothing. Left the couple homeless.

How about the couple that built their dream home. Had been saving their money all of their life. Bought a nice wooded lot. Got all of the permits and had their dream house built. The EPA later decided that the property was federally protected wetlands, and ordered the couple to tear down the house and restore the land to it's natural state...all at the expense of the homeowners. This was after the couple had paid for and received all of the necessary permits. The EPA started fining the couple $75,000 per day until the land was restored.

How about the couple that built their dream home in Colorado. Again, they paid for and received all necessary permits. The EPA decided two years after the house was built that the house was on land now deemed to be federally protected, and ordered the couple to tear down the $800,000 home at the owner's expense. But since the house was now on federally protected land, the EPA decided that the only access road to the house could not be used and must also be restored to it's natural state. So the homeowners were ordered to tear down their house and remove all the debris with no way of getting any equipment to the site, not even their own 4-wheelers. They were given one week to restore the land.

I could go on and on, rest a little while, then go on and on some more with examples of corruption and criminal behavior by various agencies of the federal government. Sometimes they do good things, many times they do not. I don't know of anyone that thinks government is not needed, but the government we have now is just overblown and is in need of serious reduction. This country was founded on the principle that the individual states have power to regulate, and the federal government was only for the common defense and to settle disputes between states. It is astonishing how that has changed. So reading "The Jungle" in today's context of the federal government is outdated.

Socialism/Communism have never been successful economically speaking.  I think Cuba and Venezuela and Greece could all testify to that.

[westend1]

14 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Socialism/Communism have never been successful economically speaking.  I think Cuba and Venezuela and Greece could all testify to that.

How about the couple in California that was bottling their own milk. Their neighbors thought that the milk was better than store-bought milk because it was straight from the cow, and persuaded the couple to sell the milk to them. The FDA then came in and confiscated every thing the couple owned, including the cows. No due process, no warning, no nothing. Left the couple homeless.

How about the couple that built their dream home. Had been saving their money all of their life. Bought a nice wooded lot. Got all of the permits and had their dream house built. The EPA later decided that the property was federally protected wetlands, and ordered the couple to tear down the house and restore the land to it's natural state...all at the expense of the homeowners. This was after the couple had paid for and received all of the necessary permits. The EPA started fining the couple $75,000 per day until the land was restored.

How about the couple that built their dream home in Colorado. Again, they paid for and received all necessary permits. The EPA decided two years after the house was built that the house was on land now deemed to be federally protected, and ordered the couple to tear down the $800,000 home at the owner's expense. But since the house was now on federally protected land, the EPA decided that the only access road to the house could not be used and must also be restored to it's natural state. So the homeowners were ordered to tear down their house and remove all the debris with no way of getting any equipment to the site, not even their own 4-wheelers. They were given one week to restore the land.

 

 

 

Cool, except, best I can tell, none of it is true.  Where did you get this info?  I am willing to learn.  Do you have a link?  From what I can find, every one of these is exxagerated or outright false.

[Englebert]

Read about them a few years ago. No, I don't have a link. When I did read them I had no reason to believe they were not true, but they could be. I saw the one about the guy's mountain home in Colorado on one of the science channels...History Channel, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, PBS...one of them. I then did an internet search and found an article that corroborated the story. So I definitely believe that one is accurate. Let me know if you find anything on any of them.

[stevenash]

Would you like a link to the Solyndra story?  Or perhaps one regarding  the economic viability of Amtrak and the U.S Postal Service?  Or, perhaps, a link regarding the Detroit Bankruptcy and the "management skills" of Kwame Killpatrick?

[Englebert]

Here's an interesting one on the FDA. I have no clue as to the accuracy.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I have read/heard many stories about government agencies confiscating property and/or money without due cause and refuse to return it even after filing no charges. Had it happen to me. I had to sue to get my money returned...and I received no interest payments. It took me two and a half years to get my money returned after it was confiscated. That was a State case, but I can see where the Federal government can and will abuse their powers in the same manner.

[westend1]

28 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Here's an interesting one on the FDA. I have no clue as to the accuracy.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I have read/heard many stories about government agencies confiscating property and/or money without due cause and refuse to return it even after filing no charges. Had it happen to me. I had to sue to get my money returned...and I received no interest payments. It took me two and a half years to get my money returned after it was confiscated. That was a State case, but I can see where the Federal government can and will abuse their powers in the same manner.

Tell me about it.  Why was your money seized?

[westend1]

41 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Read about them a few years ago. No, I don't have a link. When I did read them I had no reason to believe they were not true, but they could be. I saw the one about the guy's mountain home in Colorado on one of the science channels...History Channel, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, PBS...one of them. I then did an internet search and found an article that corroborated the story. So I definitely believe that one is accurate. Let me know if you find anything on any of them.

I ask this because I am pretty familiar with federal agencies and they normally bend over backward to protect due process.  I have never seen anything like you are describing.

[Englebert]

Most are good honest people. The problem is we have too many of them. And when you have as many federal agents as we have now, you are bound to have some abuse their power.

[Silsbee92]

4 hours ago, westend1 said:

I ask this because I am pretty familiar with federal agencies and they normally bend over backward to protect due process.  I have never seen anything like you are describing.

Veterans Administration. 

They bend over backward for sure.... so they don't have to look you in the eye.

[Hagar]

18 hours ago, nappyroots said:

The republicans running in this years election make george bush look pretty d.... good

Lmbo, I know what you mean.   I saw something about Bill Clinton the other day and thot, he was pretty durn good compared to Bernie & Hillary (and even a couple of Republicans).   Times are changing - fast.