Why do Democrats want more government? - Page 2

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

Well they're actually accountable to the public, so yes. You'd rather trust private corporations to put the interests of the public ahead of making a buck?

Absolutely. Becaues the government makes laws that punish us if we choose to go against them. The private corporations can't make such laws, and in the end, they are accountable to the public, since without the public they are no more. The government has no fear of being dissolved.

What's worse, an entity that goes away when the public turns on them, or an entity that doesn't care what the public thinks, cause it will never go away?

You guess which is which.

bheld · 01-12-2008, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Absolutely. Becaues the government makes laws that punish us if we choose to go against them. The private corporations can't make such laws, and in the end, they are accountable to the public, since without the public they are no more. The government has no fear of being dissolved.

What's worse, an entity that goes away when the public turns on them, or an entity that doesn't care what the public thinks, cause it will never go away?

You guess which is which.

Well for one thing we're the government. Without the people the government is no more as well. What do you think happens to governments when people turn on them?

Corporations are accountable only to shareholders. The public may turn on some if something really bad happens but they're shape-shifters. Look at Arthur Andersen. Now they're Accenture and people have already forgotten about that whole scandal. Shareholders can make millions from unethical practices, dissolve the corporations when the jig is up, and then start all over again.

I'd argue that the permanence of government is a big asset and not a drawback.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by bheld

Well for one thing we're the government. Without the people the government is no more as well. What do you think happens to governments when people turn on them?

They wait until the next election and hope that something changes. In the meantime, they're stuck with whatever laws were put into place.

Corporations are accountable only to shareholders. The public may turn on some if something really bad happens but they're shape-shifters. Look at Arthur Andersen. Now they're Accenture and people have already forgotten about that whole scandal. Shareholders can make millions from unethical practices, dissolve the corporations when the jig is up, and then start all over again.

Look at Enron. It is no more. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, but even more they're accountable to making a dollar. They have to make a profit. If they don't, they are forced to change their practices until the public approves. The government is forced to do no such thing.

I'd argue that the permanence of government is a big asset and not a drawback.

I'd argue that it makes them feel indestructable, and accountable to no-one but the public perception. Do you really believe them when they tell you something?

bheld · 01-12-2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They wait until the next election and hope that something changes. In the meantime, they're stuck with whatever laws were put into place.

If the market is so much more responsive to the needs of the public then why has government had to step in so many times to regulate? I just don't understand your thought process here. You're pretty much downplaying the importance of democracy in an attempt to prop up a bad argument in favor of your economic doctrine.

Look at Enron. It is no more. Corporations are accountable to their shareholders, but even more they're accountable to making a dollar. They have to make a profit. If they don't, they are forced to change their practices until the public approves. The government is forced to do no such thing.

Enron collapsed after the big players squeezed every last dollar out of the situation. Again, you're proving my point. It's not about providing service, it's about making money. The big players in the Enron case knew what was going on and had Ken Lay juggle things long enough for them to get out with billions. They were never interested in Enron, they were interested in money. Enron disappears, and some other corporation pops up.

Once again, the government is accountable through democratic elections. They are forced to change their actions until the public approves or else they will not win elections.

bheld · 01-12-2008, 11:07 AM

I'd argue that it makes them feel indestructable, and accountable to no-one but the public perception. Do you really believe them when they tell you something?

Who are we talking about here? Sounds a lot like corporate majority shareholders.

Publius · 01-12-2008, 11:09 AM

I could ask the same question of Republicans. I have more respect for Democrats than Republicans on this issue; at least Democrats are open about wanting to expand government, Republicans sit back and say they want smaller government as they work just as hard to expand the government.

Boerg · 01-12-2008, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Well they're actually accountable to the public, so yes. You'd rather trust private corporations to put the interests of the public ahead of making a buck?

Yes. It's not that I trust one private corporation more than the government but I trust the competition of several private corporations. It's not that governments intentions are bad, but they're not in the business of making money. It is most rewarding for a manager over a beuracratic organization to pull as much budget as possible and to spend every dime that's allocated. He's actually punished when the entire budget is not spent.

That's in contrast to corporations who, trying to 'make a buck,' will lean out the organization as much as possible while providing a service that must be competitive. Government probably does has the best interest of the people in mind but as a much greater cost than their dollar driven counterparts. Just look at the marketplace. Would you rather be buying groceries from your choice of competing entities or government or government controlled industry?

Boerg · 01-12-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Enron collapsed after the big players squeezed every last dollar out of the situation. Again, you're proving my point. It's not about providing service, it's about making money. The big players in the Enron case knew what was going on and had Ken Lay juggle things long enough for them to get out with billions. They were never interested in Enron, they were interested in money. Enron disappears, and some other corporation pops up.

Once again, the government is accountable through democratic elections. They are forced to change their actions until the public approves or else they will not win elections.

The major distinction is that yes the big players walked with big money, but it wasn't my money. Had Enron been a government entity, it would have been.

garbagemanlb · 01-12-2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I could ask the same question of Republicans. I have more respect for Democrats than Republicans on this issue; at least Democrats are open about wanting to expand government, Republicans sit back and say they want smaller government as they work just as hard to expand the government.

In Ballz world, the GOP actually shrunk the government and reduced spending during its total control of the congress/whitehouse.

Also, you hit the nail on the head. Democrats don't go around whining about 'big government' whereas the GOP does yet they too pass social programs and spend out the ass. What a bunch of hypocrites, and it is sad that people on this board buy that rhetoric.

bheld · 01-12-2008, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Boerg

Yes. It's not that I trust one private corporation more than the government but I trust the competition of several private corporations. It's not that governments intentions are bad, but they're not in the business of making money. It is most rewarding for a manager over a beuracratic organization to pull as much budget as possible and to spend every dime that's allocated. He's actually punished when the entire budget is not spent.

That's in contrast to corporations who, trying to 'make a buck,' will lean out the organization as much as possible while providing a service that must be competitive. Government probably does has the best interest of the people in mind but as a much greater cost than their dollar driven counterparts. Just look at the marketplace. Would you rather be buying groceries from your choice of competing entities or government or government controlled industry?

You're seriously distorting my argument. Operating grocery stores probably wouldn't fall under most people's definition of a social service. Bear in mind I'm not advocating an elimination of all private businesses but if government can serve the public better than private corporations I'm all for it.

bheld · 01-12-2008, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Boerg

The major distinction is that yes the big players walked with big money, but it wasn't my money. Had Enron been a government entity, it would have been.

Exactly, and that is why I say that government is more accountable to the people than private corporations.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

Exactly, and that is why I say that government is more accountable to the people than private corporations.

That doesn't make sense. They do it now and get away with it, because you let them, and you can't change it.

Thorgrim · 01-12-2008, 04:12 PM

I always pick the USPS, in my hometown the Catholic schools were running out of students and many people picked the brand new public high school as the place to get the better education, a lot of my friend picked state schools and ended up at the best graduate schools or some really great jobs, people prefer the federal interstate over the turnpikes in my experience, despite anecdotal accounts on this board...I always counter on my own that people prefer the VA medical centers to ruthless HMOs, people prefer government retirement plans like 401ks as a hopeful bonus with the nice safety net of social security...people pick the government over the private everyday

RMNIXON · 01-12-2008, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I think 'better government' is the answer.

You should write for political candidates.

Any party...............

RMNIXON · 01-12-2008, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

That's a fabrication of the highest degree. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that government employees are more mission-driven than those working in the private sector. Unless you're talking about the people working at the DMV, I hate those bastards.

The DMV?

Why single them out?

Because those are the people you must interact with? If you had the slightest clue about the waste and stupidity of those you don't see I think you would think better of the DMV. It is no fabrication. I know very well what I talk about. Even the FBI can't pay a phone bill. Do you know what it takes just to get into the FBI? It turns good people to shit. That is what government does.
Lesser people would be fired on the spot in any private enterprise. In government you get promoted based on your ability to come up with excuses for waste and fraud. If the media would bother to expose the truth you would have a taxpayer rebellion that would make the Boston Tea Party look like a Sunday picnic!

That is what I don't get about liberals. Explain to me why people in the private sector are such crooks, cheats, and liars out to poison and kill people for a buck, but somehow the government is full of our better angels? If that is the miracle to make human beings better people then scrap the whole private sector and let big government roll! But I get the impression that it does not work that way? In fact I am inclined to think miserable selfish people are more inclined to seek the shelter of government protected jobs. Is that such a far out observation on human nature?

RMNIXON · 01-12-2008, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

In Ballz world, the GOP actually shrunk the government and reduced spending during its total control of the congress/whitehouse.

Also, you hit the nail on the head. Democrats don't go around whining about 'big government' whereas the GOP does yet they too pass social programs and spend out the ass. What a bunch of hypocrites, and it is sad that people on this board buy that rhetoric.

It really sucks when I must agree with garbageman!

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

In Ballz world, the GOP actually shrunk the government and reduced spending during its total control of the congress/whitehouse.

Spending =! bigger government, especially in a time of war. I do not want governmetn intrustion on our lives, but if they need government expansion in the military, by all means, I'm for it. I believe the founding fathers were too.

garbagemanlb · 01-12-2008, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Spending =! bigger government, especially in a time of war. I do not want governmetn intrustion on our lives, but if they need government expansion in the military, by all means, I'm for it. I believe the founding fathers were too.

Since when does spending not equal bigger government?

Christ you must be trolling now.

ballz2wallz · 01-12-2008, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

Since when does spending not equal bigger government? Christ you must be trolling now.

Why should increased spending during a war mean a bigger government? It costs more to support them and send them overseas than it does to have them home. It doesn't mean the government is any bigger just because we increased our spending to send the military into battle.

What's wrong with you? Why am I trolling?