Why Obama is wrong when he says business needs the government

[NYcarbineer]

I think we should let the OP debate with himself:

This is what he said on the subject in the past:

By the way, just for the record, government jobs do not help the economy, they are a drain on it. A necessary drain, up to a point, but a drain none the less.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2814826-post12.html

So it's QW who says government isn't necessary vs. QW who says government is necessary.

Let the debate begin!!

 

[PratchettFan]

Read your own post. All of those things are federally related.

Is that a yes or a no?

Its pointing out that Obama was speaking about the federal government. It is pointing out YOU were using federal examples. It is pointing to the true topic of Obama's socialist agenda. Deflect all you want.

I read what he said and that is not what he was speaking about.

 

[saveliberty]

Is that a yes or a no?

Its pointing out that Obama was speaking about the federal government. It is pointing out YOU were using federal examples. It is pointing to the true topic of Obama's socialist agenda. Deflect all you want.

I read what he said and that is not what he was speaking about.

I read it too. Your inability to read for meaning behind the words is noted.

 

[PratchettFan]

Its pointing out that Obama was speaking about the federal government. It is pointing out YOU were using federal examples. It is pointing to the true topic of Obama's socialist agenda. Deflect all you want.

I read what he said and that is not what he was speaking about.

I read it too. Your inability to read for meaning behind the words is noted.

Ahhhh... my problem is that I am paying attention to what he said and not to what you think he would have said if he meant what you think he meant. Yes, I do seem to have that problem.

 

[saveliberty]

I read what he said and that is not what he was speaking about.

I read it too. Your inability to read for meaning behind the words is noted.

Ahhhh... my problem is that I am paying attention to what he said and not to what you think he would have said if he meant what you think he meant. Yes, I do seem to have that problem.

Try thinking about it this way. A terrorist sends out death threats and makes attacks for three years. Then he tells you part of the problem is yours too. Placing something in the context of what the person has said and done in the past is usually a good practice.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think we should let the OP debate with himself:

This is what he said on the subject in the past:

By the way, just for the record, government jobs do not help the economy, they are a drain on it. A necessary drain, up to a point, but a drain none the less.

I'm trying to figure out how that applies to me. I get paid by the state government to study astrophysics. I take my money and I spend it on food. That helps my grocer - who makes jobs. I get my car repaired with it - making jobs for those who fix cars. I use it to take my kid to the doctor - making jobs for the health industry. If you could, perhaps, explain how anyone particular player in the market - be it my grocer, or automechanic, or doctor - would care one way or another whether the U.S. dollars I'm handing them came from a public or private job?

 

[PratchettFan]

I read it too. Your inability to read for meaning behind the words is noted.

Ahhhh... my problem is that I am paying attention to what he said and not to what you think he would have said if he meant what you think he meant. Yes, I do seem to have that problem.

Try thinking about it this way. A terrorist sends out death threats and makes attacks for three years. Then he tells you part of the problem is yours too. Placing something in the context of what the person has said and done in the past is usually a good practice.

Uh huh. Now, should I do that based upon what this terrorist has actualy done and said or just based upon what people say he would have done and said if he did and said what they think he wanted to do and say?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do the gun runners and drug dealers have rules and regulations regarding their transactions? Usually if a business is illegal and wants to last it will eventually make rules and regulations sort of creating their own governments. The ultimate of that kind of business is probably found in our own prohibition era, Capone and the South side was one such government and the Bugs on the North side. Each had a government with rules and regulations--and stiff penaltys.

Nothing yuo posted here in any way negates what I said.

So what nations have no rules regarding commerce? What nations have no penalties for not obeying their rules of commerce? Why did our founders give the national and state governments the power to regulate commerce? Government is heavily involved in commerce. It is one of the main reasons America changed from the Articles to the Constitution.

Sigh.

No matter how 'heavily involved' government may be in commerce, or how much better/effective/efficient/profitable commerce might be with government help. commerce does -not- require government involvement to exist, as proven by the examples I gave.

So, again: Nothing you posted here in any way negates what I said.

 

[saveliberty]

Ahhhh... my problem is that I am paying attention to what he said and not to what you think he would have said if he meant what you think he meant. Yes, I do seem to have that problem.

Try thinking about it this way. A terrorist sends out death threats and makes attacks for three years. Then he tells you part of the problem is yours too. Placing something in the context of what the person has said and done in the past is usually a good practice.

Uh huh. Now, should I do that based upon what this terrorist has actualy done and said or just based upon what people say he would have done and said if he did and said what they think he wanted to do and say?

Obama's record is public. Your scenario has no merit.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nothing yuo posted here in any way negates what I said.

So what nations have no rules regarding commerce? What nations have no penalties for not obeying their rules of commerce? Why did our founders give the national and state governments the power to regulate commerce? Government is heavily involved in commerce. It is one of the main reasons America changed from the Articles to the Constitution.

Sigh.

No matter how 'heavily involved' government may be in commerce, or how much better/effective/efficient/profitable commerce might be with government help. commerce does -not- require government involvement to exist, as proven by the examples I gave.

So, again: Nothing you posted here in any way negates what I said.

Saying that is the case does not make it the case. Perhaps you can point to a society which does not have any form of government so we can see just how that works.

 

[PratchettFan]

Try thinking about it this way. A terrorist sends out death threats and makes attacks for three years. Then he tells you part of the problem is yours too. Placing something in the context of what the person has said and done in the past is usually a good practice.

Uh huh. Now, should I do that based upon what this terrorist has actualy done and said or just based upon what people say he would have done and said if he did and said what they think he wanted to do and say?

Obama's record is public. Your scenario has no merit.

It wasn't my scenario, it was your scenario. You were referring to a terrorist. It never even occured to me that you would be so blindly biased that you would compare the President of the United States to a terrorist.

Now, compared to what I have seen of Obama's public record (as opposed to what people tell me he would have done if only he actually did what they think he wants to do) then I think I will go by what he said rather than what you tell me he meant to say.

Think of it this way. If someone keeps shouting "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" everytime a poodle comes into the room, you take that into consideration when they want to explain the nature of dogs to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No. Government pre-existed commerce.

Nope. Not even close. There was commerce before there was the -idea- of government.

No. There wasn't. There was government when human beings were in small clans of hunter gatherers. Commerce came much later. Despite the old saw, it is government that is the oldest profession - with religion right on its tail.

How can anyone as stupid of you appreciate the subtlety of Prachett's writing? Commerce occurred when the first creature came home with food and shared it. Government did not happen until moochers that couldn't fend for themselves, or pay for the food, demanded an equal share.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't. "Knowledgeable" is a meaningless term in this context. People are knowledgable, not business or government. Knowledgable people can be in either, and are.

You didn't make this post?

Well, off the top of my head, water and sewer services, roads, fire, police, courts, defense, international relations, border control, health inspections, quality control for food, inspections of commericial vehicles and operators, air traffic control, inspections of commericial airplanes. Would you like more?

Want to just admit you stuck your nose into the wrong conversation? It even includes the part where I specifically asked the idiot what does the public sector know best, and you tried to assert all sorts of things that you now admit are wrong.

My apologies. I understood the point the poster was making that you were responding to and I assumed you did as well. My mistake.

Jones was not responding to a post, he just jumped in and made a typical attempt to prove he is smarter than everyone else by saying something really stupid. A bit like your assertion that government predates commerce.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what nations have no rules regarding commerce? What nations have no penalties for not obeying their rules of commerce? Why did our founders give the national and state governments the power to regulate commerce? Government is heavily involved in commerce. It is one of the main reasons America changed from the Articles to the Constitution.

Sigh.

No matter how 'heavily involved' government may be in commerce, or how much better/effective/efficient/profitable commerce might be with government help. commerce does -not- require government involvement to exist, as proven by the examples I gave.

So, again: Nothing you posted here in any way negates what I said.

Saying that is the case does not make it the case. Perhaps you can point to a society which does not have any form of government so we can see just how that works.

I provded exaples that prove my point. Thus, it is the case.

 

[The T]

Why Obama is RIGHT when he says business needs the government

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/228521-what-good-is-government.html

What Obama doesn't realize is that government needs business far more that business needs government. Commerce has existed in the world whether government is present or not.

Indeed. WHAT does government produce? [Legally, and I don't mean illegally buying car companies]...

Answer? ZERO. Government is/are TAKERS. Period.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you aren't reading what I wrote. You're reading what you wish I wrote.

The provision of these services create a natural monopoly. Government sometimes breaks up that natural monopoly. The government sometimes decides instead to either regulate or own that service. You claimed that the government breaking up a monopoly was evidence the market wouldn't lead to natural monopolies, which is absurd of course. The government intervention is not a market activity.

natural monopolies exist and the government controls them because society wants more phones and electricity than an attempt at competitive markets will provide efficiently.

Have you ever wondered why most towns only have one option for water and one option for cable television? It's not because people who sell Cable TV hate competition.

Just because Edison convinced the government that Tesla was crazy doesn't mean wires are the only way to transmit electricity.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8OkbumcY0"]Transmission of Power Without Wires (Scalar Waves) - YouTube[/ame]

Oh gawd. If only it was available 120 years ago.

The reason most towns have only one cable company is that town made a law that only the company that gave them the largest kickback would get the exclusive contract.

Lol. Right, that's the ticket!

Actually, no - you're wrong. The reason is that most people see no sense in having their entire town dug up a second time so that some company can lay another round of cables, thereby diluting the value of the original firm. The fixed costs are too high.

It was. Strangely enough, he couldn't get the anyone interested in giving away electricity.

PBS: Tesla - Master of Lightning: Tower of Dreams

There is a way to transmit electricity without investing in building a power distribution system that has existed for over 100 years. This system would not go down during a thunderstorm because a tree knocks a transmission line over. It wouldn't go down in the winter because ice weighed down the lines. It wouldn't even go down in an earthquake. Yet it has not been built.

Try thinking with something besides your ass for a change. Can you think of any reason a government wouldn't want a nationwide electrical grid that was invulnerable to a dump truck hitting a transmission node?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. Not even close. There was commerce before there was the -idea- of government.

No. There wasn't. There was government when human beings were in small clans of hunter gatherers. Commerce came much later. Despite the old saw, it is government that is the oldest profession - with religion right on its tail.

Add in to say..no commerce ever created a state. Commerce without a secure environment does not last very long.

Strange, there has been a thriving black market in Gaza that has existed for years despite the efforts of two separate governments to shut it down. Want to rethink your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The proof is the fact that the only place monopolies exist is where they are legally enforced.

Oh really? Which government enforced the nearly century-long DeBeers monopoly?

The United Kingdom for most of its existence, now it is enforced by international treaty that makes any diamond that doesn't come from a DeBeers sanctioned mine illegal by calling them blood diamonds.

Targeting 'conflict diamonds' in Africa

 

[Mr.Nick]

History is full of examples of the government taking on projects that are huge because they believe they wouldn't happen otherwise. History is also full of examples of projects that businesses took on because they were needed. My favorite example of the latter is one of Obama's talking points when he claims that the government is indispensable.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge...

Turns out that the government actually did everything it could to stop the Golden Gate bridge, and that, ultimately, it was built because of one man.

In fact, it was the ‘One Percenters’, as is the term coined of the rich and powerful these days, that built the Golden Gate, not government. More importantly, it was government that posed more obstacles for the building of the bridge than any other entity and if the Department of Defense had their way it never would have been built at all.

Some basic research into the building of the bridge indicated that the original architect of the bridge, Joseph Strauss (who also designed a bridge to be built over the Bering Strait) faced numerous obstacles from government after his original proposal to them in 1921. Several years earlier the government had done a study about building a bridge in those waters and had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to build a bridge from the city to Marin County. San Francisco City Engineer Michael O'Shaughnessy had requested the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey to make soundings of the channel bottom. The U.S.S. Natoma completed the sounding of the channel in May 1920, and after receiving the Natoma's survey data, O'Shaughnessy consults engineers from around the country about feasibility and cost. Many say it cannot be done, and if it can be the cost would exceed $100 million. The idea was then shelved until Strauss comes forward with his design.

A second problem in 1929 when the US Stock Market collapsed made for more problems. The Golden Gate committee now has trouble issuing the bond needed for the construction of the bridge, even though the citizens of the surrounding area had put up their own personal lands and farms as collateral. It takes 3 more years and the wealthy President and founder of Bank of America, A.P. Giannini, to personally buy the 35 million dollar bond which he then finances through the bank. Without the bank and the intervention of private industry fueled by personal wealth, again the bridge would not have been built. By 1937 the bridge is completed—and Strauss delivers the bridge 1.7 million UNDER budget, using local non-union labor and private contractors.

www.thomas-purcell.com: Obama's Golden Gate Sized Error

Want to know what else got built without the government?

I think businesses did just fine before government started fucking with them and using them as "cash cows" around 1900.....

Government does absolutely nothing for businesses except steal their money....

Businesses and taxpayers help the government - the government doesn't help them..

As usual Obama is ass-backwards...

 

[amrchaos]

Nope. Not even close. There was commerce before there was the -idea- of government.

No. There wasn't. There was government when human beings were in small clans of hunter gatherers. Commerce came much later. Despite the old saw, it is government that is the oldest profession - with religion right on its tail.

Add in to say..no commerce ever created a state. Commerce without a secure environment does not last very long.

Actually, farms came into existance long before government. After the establishmeent of farms came Farming communes and the primitive beginnings of multi-family societies and government.

The first farmers supplied their own security--there was no government to rely on.