We have a current debt of $18 trillion dollars, we have projected unfunded liabilities of over $128 trillion, to bring those numbers back into a reasonably manageable range, we would need to post an annual surplus equal to the interest on the debt plus a payment on the principal. We have not posted a REAL surplus since 1950, 60 years ago! We have not produced a balanced budget in almost 20 years, even then the actual year end numbers still resulted in a deficit because the budgets were not followed.

So all the talk about a gradual reduction in our wasteful and/or unnecessary spending is meaningless drivel, it's going to hurt bad whether we do it voluntarily or we do it by defaulting on the debt.

 

[QUOTE="tenguy, post: 6728958, member: 111979

Imagine if tomorrow, a new President and Congress were to adopt stringent businesslike controls on the budget: Imagine that every single: redundant, ineffective, unnecessary or otherwise expendable government employee was fired. If the DoD was directed to close ever single military installation that was not necessary to meet realistic objectives in national security. Next imagine that every budget line item had to be recalculated based on a zero starting place. Then imagine that every person who was receiving government assistance was re-qualified and vetted to eliminate a benefits to those failing to qualify. While this was happening, the IRS would restructure the tax code to eliminate every single deductible that did not fit a strictly applied set of cost/benefit criteria.

Try running on that platform.[/QUOTE]

Wow
Well , you most certainly would be most unwise to vote that guy in to run your country.
[like a successful business]
That is not a good business model for the job by any measure.

A good company manager , dose not restructure in a manner that destroys his company in the process , through excessive redundancy costs etc.

 

Not saying I wouldn't vote for him, it's too early to make decisions, but his business acumen is debatable. He's bankrupted tons of companies.

 

A good company manager does not waste his resources.

An example:
There was a company which grossed $35 million per year but bled $500 to 800k per year for 4 consecutive years. A new President/COO was brought in to right the ship, in one year the $800k loss was replaced by a $125k profit, by the end of the second year the profit rose to $850k. All lost capital was replace in five years, employment was reduced by 40% in number of people and 30% in payroll dollars. Sales volume increased 20% in two years and the company maintained a ROCE of 17%.

 

If those companies were strong enough to stay in business, they would not have been bankrupted.

It truly is unfortunate that so many haven't a clear understanding on how business actually works, successful business practices will always adjust to the times, if the business is not capable of adjusting to the times, the business is going to fail eventually, and to hear that jobs were lost due to the bankrupted companies, WELL, JOBS ARE NOT GUARANTEED.

Business and Socialism, wont and dont blend well.

 

lmao ,
I/we don't need a case history of companies .
There are endless examples we could quote , for whatever scenario you choose.
as I said , that's a different subject to the thread we are in.
There are so many ways a company/government could be restructured , re-organised , slimmed down , improved and made more productive and efficient .
I certainly don't intend to begin to debate them here.

Back to the subject , lol , possible Trump be next pres ?

looking from the outside and a bit ignorant of the system etc.
I'd say it is possible.

 

Then, you tell me exactly how this thread can make it to 50 pages without derailing it 9 or 11 times, your perfect little world does not really exist.

 

No, but it since you were the one who thought that drastic cuts would destroy a company, it was prudent to show that you were wrong.

It is not rocket science, spend more than you earn and you are in debt to someone, once in debt a portion of your income goes towards satisfying the P/I on that debt. The larger the debt the bigger the P/I hit.

 

I said no such thing , nor that I thaught anything like it

I never mentioned derailing , or not.

and not the least interested in this stupid bickering nonsense , lol ,
I'm all done here.

If you wish to reinvent or misinterpret what I actually said , fill your boots

 

Hmmm, who posted this?
"A good company manager , dose not restructure in a manner that destroys his company in the process , through excessive redundancy costs etc."

Try to keep up, okay?

 

Did you not see the lil' emoticon at the end of my sentence?
Nothing what I was claiming was serious, it was ''satire''


sat·ire
[ˈsaˌtīr]
NOUN

1. the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
   synonyms: mockery · ridicule · derision · scorn · caricature · irony

 

The reason governments exist is because there is a limit to what a private enterprise can accomplish. How many bridges in the country could be built, if construction and maintenance were financed by tolls collected from users? A business can collect tolls from the users, but it can't collect anything from the millions of people who economically benefit from short distance to and from market.

If a government were run like a business, there would be no taxes, only usage fees. Those that can afford to pay for a bridge to their business will get one. In the end, it will become a feudal economy, where the government bows to a few people who have all the wealth and control the population by deciding who will be allowed to prosper. There is a heavy emphasis on "be allowed."

Those we cry that we are slaves to government because we pay taxes for bridges we do not cross, would happily bow down and be slaves to a few business owners.

 

Poll: Bernie Sanders would beat Donald Trump
By Chris Moody, CNN Senior Digital Correspondent
Updated 3:11 PM ET, Thu July 30, 2015

Washington (CNN)Sen. Bernie Sandersruns far behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination fight, but the socialist from Vermont would defeat New York real estate mogul and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump in a presidential general election, a new poll suggests.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows that in a hypothetical general election match-up, Sanders tops Trump 44% to 39%. The data point shows that although Trump is leading the GOP pack now, he could prove to be a disaster for Republicans in a broader presidential contest next year.

Trump also trails Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Clinton by a margin of 12 percentage points in the poll and to Vice President Joe Biden by 13 percentage points should he join the race and win the party nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-poll/

 

The Government's are not capable of being run as a business, it's just not set up to be run that way, BUT, the Country was set up to be run as a business to an extent.

 

"If" those companies were strong enough, then no shit they would have survived, "but" trump didn't manage them correctly thus they weren't strong enough. You can argue what ifs till the cows come home but case in point they were his companies and they went bankrupt under his management.

It's laughable you question my business acumen - without giving too much personal information; I have two graduate degrees in business, and work for a fortune 100 financial services company so no need to question my understanding of business. I completely understand everything there is to understand about business. Thanks.

 

I suspect, if it were a FoxNews poll, the leftists' numbers would be 20 to 30 points lower.

 

Then why are you even bringing this up, if you do understand business as you claim you do, ''business is not a guarantee'' to be a success, you and I both know that business is a gamble, and I dont have two graduate degrees in business.

 

You posted that you "understand everything there is to understand about business", just making that statement proves that you do not know everything there is to know about business.

There are times when it is to the advantage of the business to file for reorganization under the protection of chapter 11, a good manager would know when to do that. There are other times when it is to the companies advantage to cut their losses and to liquidate under chapter 7. The business will cease to exist, but they will be free to start another business immediately.

 

Wow. Where did I say being successful was a guarantee? Trump was born into his money. He didn't make it on his own. There are plenty of businessmen who aren't running for president who have been more successful than trump even on a smaller scale. Trump has the assets to cover his failures which is why it seems like he is more successful than he really is. Not sure what you're arguing about.

 

I'm arguing that you dont now squat about business, if you did, you would not have even brought Trumps business dealings into this thread, they are irrelevant to this thread.

Fred Trump had assets of $300 to $400 million, today, Trump claims that he has assets of $10 billion, I would claim that Trump has had a very successful career, Trump is a money man, this country needs an exceptional money man..

With that said, is Trump capable of running this country, I DON'T KNOW YET.