Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

[LeftofLeft]

Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

I'd be happy if the government did not lose money. Breaking even is where we should be. Why do Democrats believe that the Government losing money and increasing its debt and deficit regularly is acceptable or sustainable?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Isnt this thread the definition of straw man? I'd say YES!!!!!!!!

 

[Decus]

Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

I'd be happy if the government did not lose money. Breaking even is where we should be. Why do Democrats believe that the Government losing money and increasing its debt and deficit regularly is acceptable or sustainable?

I agree with breaking even as long as Federal spending is kept to something in the range of 15% of GDP.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What would be the big deal if government spent less than it took in?

That is the very definition of profit after all.

 

[Mac1958]

Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

They don't believe that.

They believe there is no purpose.

No food inspectors.

No speed limits.

No laws except to keep women from getting an abortion.

No safety regulations.

They want to abolish the EPA.

Let him die.

No Social Security.

No Medicare.

No help for the poor.

If they elect people into office that believe these things, then they must believe it to.

They do believe in subsidies for corporations. And apologies. Because corporations are people. Do we need links?

Should be interesting to see if this thread breaks the USMB record for intellectually dishonest, straw man arguments. Definitely a good start!

.

 

[Redfish]

What would be the big deal if government spent less than it took in?

That is the very definition of profit after all.

wrong, in the case of a government its called surplus. revenue exceeding expenditures.

as long as we have a 17 trillion national debt, it will never happen. there will never be enough surplus to pay off the debt.

right now we are only paying the interest on the debt---and borrowing money to do that.

Its fiscal insanity

 

[Decus]

Capping Federal spending as a percentage of GDP makes so much sense if you think about it.

 

[Redfish]

Capping Federal spending as a percentage of GDP makes so much sense if you think about it.

yes it does, but it makes it harder for politicians to buy votes with govt spending.

a better solution is term limits for congress, no retirement for them, no free medical care, put them in social security, cut staffing by 50%. Being in congress should not be a lucrative lifetime profession.

morons like pelosi and reid are going to be sucking the govt teats for the rest of their miserable lives. its just wrong!

 

[kaz]

No idea what you're talking about, can you provide some quotes of what you're referring to?

I'm surprised this thread has went as far as it has without answering this crucial point

indeed

I thought it was a good question when I asked it too, thanks. I thought as the Democrats are the intellectual party and far more intelligent then we are, they would be glad to clarify and provide examples and quotes. I guess since it was just so intuitively obvious they didn't feel the need. They of course would never pull an accusation out of their ass and not defend it because there is no way to defend it, so it must be that.

 

[Decus]

Capping Federal spending as a percentage of GDP makes so much sense if you think about it.

yes it does, but it makes it harder for politicians to buy votes with govt spending.

a better solution is term limits for congress, no retirement for them, no free medical care, put them in social security, cut staffing by 50%. Being in congress should not be a lucrative lifetime profession.

morons like pelosi and reid are going to be sucking the govt teats for the rest of their miserable lives. its just wrong!

I also like the idea of term limits. However capping spending as a percentage of GDP doesn't necessarily mean less spending. If government works towards growing the economy, a larger GDP will mean more money for politicians to spend. In essence an incentive to grow the US economy - bring jobs back to the US and the like. Hell, as long as spending is capped as a percentage, they can pay themselves performance bonuses for good results and it wouldn't bother me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fannie and Freddie "turn a profit" and it's at the expense of the American people, they should be liquidated

 

[Immanuel]

For those who believe OPPD's premise here, let me remind you that there is a difference between "making a profit" and being fiscally responsible. The Congress of the U.S. is failing on both.

Immie

 

[shikaki]

They don't believe that.

They believe there is no purpose.

No food inspectors.

No speed limits.

No laws except to keep women from getting an abortion.

No safety regulations.

They want to abolish the EPA.

Let him die.

No Social Security.

No Medicare.

No help for the poor.

If they elect people into office that believe these things, then they must believe it to.

They do believe in subsidies for corporations. And apologies. Because corporations are people. Do we need links?

I suppose you have links showing the GOP in any great number, support the above. Could you please post them? I may just consider throwing my support behind President obama.

Rbeandip is full of s*&*&^ again.

I'm reasonably new to this forum, but hopefully we can all be open minded about peoples thoughts and beliefs. It is incredibly easy to shoot holes in any persons argument, but difficult to confince someone of your beliefs. Hopefully a spirit of competitive debate will be the norm and not simply shooting holes in someones beliefs.

My 2 cents...

 

[Redfish]

I suppose you have links showing the GOP in any great number, support the above. Could you please post them? I may just consider throwing my support behind President obama.

Rbeandip is full of s*&*&^ again.

I'm reasonably new to this forum, but hopefully we can all be open minded about peoples thoughts and beliefs. It is incredibly easy to shoot holes in any persons argument, but difficult to confince someone of your beliefs. Hopefully a spirit of competitive debate will be the norm and not simply shooting holes in someones beliefs.

My 2 cents...

you will find that some posters are disengenuous every time they pick up the mouse and keyboard, many just repeat talking points like robot squirrrils. rbean is one of these, truthmatters is another one. No rational thought, just BS, insults, and talking points.

welcome to the boxing ring

 

[shikaki]

Capping Federal spending as a percentage of GDP makes so much sense if you think about it.

yes it does, but it makes it harder for politicians to buy votes with govt spending.

a better solution is term limits for congress, no retirement for them, no free medical care, put them in social security, cut staffing by 50%. Being in congress should not be a lucrative lifetime profession.

morons like pelosi and reid are going to be sucking the govt teats for the rest of their miserable lives. its just wrong!

Indeed... It seems we get hung up on what the government should spent the money on. I for one would rather receive my full SS that I have paid into my whole life, than have full benefits for for some stranger that bends daily to lobbyist pressures.

 

[deltex1]

Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

poopapoop thinks turning a profit is the same as not pissing money down your leg.

 

[Londoner]

I think you are referring to the way government subsidizes the wealthy.

Meaning: I think you understand the purpose of lobbying and election funding i.e., to use the power of government to increase profits.

For instance:

The consumer electronics boom of the 1980s materialized in large part with the help of technologies developed in the state sector, Specifically the Cold War Pentagon and NASA budgets.

Or what about the hugely expensive patent system that the private sector requires so that they can get state protection for their products?

Or what about all the overseas supply chains owned by our large corporations? -and their labor markets in unstable parts of the developing world? A very powerful and expensive military is required to ensure that their global markets are stabilized.

Or what about the bailouts that are required when the private sector engages in too much risk-taking in financial markets, e.g., derivatives S&Ls?

Government provides subsidies and bailouts to the private sector which controls government through election funding and lobbying.

Government provides technology to the private sector which controls it through election funding and lobbying. Research Boeing and commercial aviation or the development of the computer & Internet: both of these things were developed with very targeted and generous public funding before they were handed over to the private sector for pure profit.

Corporations use government to defend their over seas supply chains and protect their trade routes.

Pre-Reagan government was used to protect and expand the thriving middle-class, while also providing world-class infrastructure and support to the capitalists. Prosperity was more broadly shared with all the great people of this nation. Indeed, Ronald Reagan's father was bailed out by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR did not see this as a handout but rather an investment in good American citizens who had fallen on hard times and needed a leg up so that they could contribute to this great nation. Some say FDR's investment in the Reagan family paid off.

Post-Reagan government was purchased by the private sector through lobbying and election funding – and converted into a tool for private profit.

This is why Eli Lily was able to purchase a no-bid contract from the Bush administration to fund the Bush expansion of Medicare through Medicare part D. Rather than having a competitive market, government was used by a corporation to increase its profits at the expense of the taxpayer and consumers.

These same corporations generously fund right-wing think tanks, talk radio and television for the purpose of fooling naïve voters about who really owns government.

Corporations and wealthy individuals pump money into the political and media machinery in order to distract voters from asking what the lobbying and election funding is for.

The wealthy are no longer victims of government; rather, the wealthy now own government. The rest you may ignore.

 

[Oddball]

Why do Republicans think the purpose of government is to turn a profit?

The brown acid....Quit taking it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What would be the big deal if government spent less than it took in?

That is the very definition of profit after all.

wrong, in the case of a government its called surplus. revenue exceeding expenditures.

as long as we have a 17 trillion national debt, it will never happen. there will never be enough surplus to pay off the debt.

right now we are only paying the interest on the debt---and borrowing money to do that.

Its fiscal insanity

Semantics.

And debt does not negate profit or surplus as long as interest and principle payments are factored into the budget.

I might owe some money on equipment leases but the balance in no way negates any profit for the fiscal year.

 

[hortysir]

They don't believe that.

They believe there is no purpose.

No food inspectors.

No speed limits.

No laws except to keep women from getting an abortion.

No safety regulations.

They want to abolish the EPA.

Let him die.

No Social Security.

No Medicare.

No help for the poor.

If they elect people into office that believe these things, then they must believe it to.

They do believe in subsidies for corporations. And apologies. Because corporations are people. Do we need links?

^ The Voice of Treason

Corrected for truth

Editing quotes no longer a violation?