1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Do You Think the U.S. Government is a for-profit enterprise?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by shipwreck, Aug 1, 2009.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. shipwreck

    shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,126
    Likes Received:
    135
    A simple question, debated at length with two friends. I am very conflicted about my answer.

    1) Do you think the U.S. government is currently, or has ever been, a for-profit enterprise?
    2) Do you think it inevitably has to become one, if we are going to make any progress on settling the deficit?
    3) If yes, is this ethical/appropriate/democratic?
     
    #1 shipwreck, Aug 1, 2009
  2. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    For profit, in what way? Non-profit organizations still engage in profit-seeking activities to fund their other ventures: the Goodwill stores, for example. The difference between a for-profit and non-profit is that the profits go to a set of owners in the for-profit, while they get used by the organization in a non-profit.

    If the US Gov't were a for-profit, who are the owners that get the profits?
     
    #2 Major, Aug 1, 2009
  3. bingsha10

    bingsha10 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    371
    If you are asking if the US govt. is in the business of making money by producing and selling things, then obviously not. Govts tax or print to get their money.

    I don't think that should be the function of governments anyway. The government should provide public goods to protect things that are difficult to put a price on.
     
    #3 bingsha10, Aug 1, 2009
  4. BetterThanEver

    BetterThanEver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    189
    Yes, they are for a for-profit enterprise in the world. They are running a several hundred billion loss. Some of the dumbest things are the drug war and the iraq war. It's a complete money drain.
     
    #4 BetterThanEver, Aug 1, 2009
  5. shipwreck

    shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,126
    Likes Received:
    135
    Major, I don't want to define for-profit, for I don't have one set definition I want used to evaluate the question, and don't want to implant my views into the responses. I am just as interested in how the posters define the terms this as their answer.

    If you are still confused, I thought of the question like this:

    Your money goes in payments to the govt. and is used to purchase a bevy of services, and in theory, the 'profit' margin of this revenue should be given back to the 'investor', the tax payer (whether it is through a service, or a literal dividend as done in recent years). What is the intended, actual, or proper use of such a surplus?

    Furthermore, with respect to the eroding the national debt, would the government taking on more of a profit-generating role, or specifically implementing programs INTENDED to generate cash to be 'pocketed' by Uncle Sam (ie. not put into a service/program with indirect value/repayment to investors) bother you?

    I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
     
    #5 shipwreck, Aug 1, 2009
  6. Northside Storm

    Northside Storm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    To weather changes in the business cycle...like Recession 2008-09. In down years governments don't have to borrow money to finance things like, say...the stimulus.

    Of course, the point is moot in this situation since the Govt. hasn't run a surplus in quite some time, thanks to the grand old party. we are going to be swimming deep deep deep into the red ink as a result.
     
    #6 Northside Storm, Aug 1, 2009
  7. shipwreck

    shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,126
    Likes Received:
    135
    Any answer to question #3?
     
    #7 shipwreck, Aug 1, 2009
  8. BetterThanEver

    BetterThanEver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    189
    As for the CEOs in the last 30 years, W, Bush, and Reagan are worst than the AIG CEO. The only CEO that actually was able to reduce losses was Clinton. If things had kept on going, they could have made a profit.
     
    #8 BetterThanEver, Aug 1, 2009
  9. BetterThanEver

    BetterThanEver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    9,931
    Likes Received:
    189
    no opinion about 3.
     
    #9 BetterThanEver, Aug 1, 2009
  10. bingsha10

    bingsha10 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    371
    If it really tried to do that in an industry it would soon become a monopoly because of its practically unlimited resources and ability to change the rules of the game. Because monopolies limit supply that would be a bad thing unless there was a really good external reason for needing the govt. monopoly.

    On the other hand, if the govt. acted like a profit making industry NOW, with respect to how it handles our money, it would cut costs or go out of business. But since its not a profit making entity it just prints its own money to make up the difference.
     
    #10 bingsha10, Aug 1, 2009
  11. Dan B.

    Dan B. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    15
    I think that government cannot be concerned about quarterly profits. If they reduce the motivation to "are we breaking even every three months," they will not be able to fund many of the programs that have created tremendous long term benefit. Think of Hoover Dam -- a money sinkhole at the time that eventually produced both Phoenix and Las Vegas. Sometimes we need to think further ahead than next month.
     
    #11 Dan B., Aug 1, 2009
  12. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,257
    Likes Received:
    32,974
    I view the government as more of a Money Laundering front company

    You money is taken and filter through the government to be given to big corporations\Uber rich folx

    Rocket River
     
    #12 Rocket River, Aug 1, 2009
  13. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,257
    Likes Received:
    32,974

    Corporations are the owners
    Who has more say in government . . . . People or Corporations [via lobbyist and corporate contributions]

    If the government found out something was bad for you
    and a Corp that benefitted from it greatly . . . .
    Do you think the corp could get the government to cover it up . . . .
    or would the government say NO! Let's do what is best for the people?

    Nope! They will tell you . . .they need more studies and will study it until they find a study that says what the company line is . . .

    Rocket River
     
    #13 Rocket River, Aug 1, 2009
  14. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,209
    Like asbestos?
     
    #14 Major, Aug 1, 2009
  15. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,944
    Likes Received:
    6,696
    no or a very bad one.
     
    #15 Air Langhi, Aug 1, 2009
  16. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    The government isn't and by nature can't be. While fiscal responsibility is important the government isn't and can't be primarily concerned with earnings. For a for profit business that is what they exist for.
     
    #16 rocketsjudoka, Aug 1, 2009
  17. shipwreck

    shipwreck Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,126
    Likes Received:
    135
    I agree.

    Socrates persists...

    Would specific programs designed to generate revenue to keep (ideally to put towards the debt): i) even help increase the efficiency of said programs, or would it simply risk implementing a playground for corruption/abuses thus negating any potential benefits of increased fiscal culpability? ii) violate the democratic/capitalistic/ethical tenants our government is predicated on?
     
    #17 shipwreck, Aug 1, 2009
  18. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,259
    Likes Received:
    18,264
    No

    No

    and

    No
     
    #18 Rashmon, Aug 1, 2009
  19. ymc

    ymc Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    36
    more like a for loss organization :p :p :p
     
    #19 ymc, Aug 1, 2009
  20. Mr. Clutch

    Mr. Clutch Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    46,550
    Likes Received:
    6,132
    1) No
    2) No, it can just cut it's budget deficit.
    3) Not sure, depends on what exactly "for profit" means.
     
    #20 Mr. Clutch, Aug 1, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page