georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:So you don't believe there is any waste in government or inefficient programs?
Man, can you post without committing a logical fallacy? Now you have resorted to Appealing to Extremes.
The point isn't that there is zero waste, it's that the mindset which leads one to be a successful businessman will not translate into a successful leader. A successful leader cannot just cut away 'dead wood' without considering the ramifications. Therefore, the things that Romney learned to do while running businesses will not be easily translated into running the country.
Cycloptichorn
You should beware of accusing others of logical errors in a screed of your own that is so replete with them.
In the first place it is evident that you are motivated by prejudices toward "business" that I strongly suspect are not validated by any personal and meaningful experience or training. In the second, I believe you harbor some fairly narrow (and incomplete) concepts of just what constitutes leadership.
Knowing when to walk away from a bad bet, an underperforming investment, a losing campaign or a failed policy is a key element of successful leadership in every area of human endeavor from poker to business investment, military strategy or politics. A leader who - in any of these areas - lacks the insight and the will to act in accordance with this time-honored principle will surely fail those who depend on him.
During WWII President FDR knowingly abandoned a rather large U.S. military establishment in the Phillipines and Far East, in favor of sending immediate aid to a badly beleaguered Britain. Tens of thousands of Americans suffered defeat and imprisionment at the rather unkind hands of the conquoring Japanese. There were indeed considerable ramifications to this "cutting away of dead wood" in our government and military services. The evidence suggests that Roosevelt did indeed consider them, but he acted decisively (and some say, ruthlessly) nevertheless.
I have had the experience of managing turnarounds in businesses. One an engineering consultancy company, headquartered in Walnut Creek (about 400 employees) was (after we foolishly bought it) discovered to be rife with internal discord, some led by its senior officers; have large uncollectable receivables on its books; faced with lawsuits over allegations of past design errors; and rapidly declining sales. It is not possible in such circumstances to mobilize the unity of purpose and action required to save the enterprise from complete collapse without drastic action - frankly very often the more drastic the better. I fired a couple of VPs just to end the discord & get the attention of the others; closed underperforming offices, together amounting to about 100 people; and hunkered down do deal with the legal and performance issues before uis. The shocks rapidly mobilized those who remained and the company eventually prospered.
There are numerous components of our government bureaucracy that need similar shocks. Very likely the Immigration and Naturalization Service is one. I can tell you from direct experience that the Department of Energy is another. Perhaps you should look up the history of the FAA and Reagan's reform of the Air Traffic Controller's union in the early year sof his first administration.
Being prejudiced towards 'big business' is not a logical fallacy, George.
The VPs you fired can get jobs elsewhere. Those who rely upon certain social services long and often decried by Republicans as wasteful, most likely will not be able to take equivalent action in their life. Therefore, when describing cutting social programs - something every major Republican candidate has signaled they would like to do - you can't just ignore the effects upon the lives of the constituents, like you did the effects upon the lives of the VP. While those considerations weren't material to your bottom line, they are material when you are running a country. I'm afraid to say that I don't think that someone who sees the US as one big business is qualified to be our leader, George. They have a fundamental problem with their core philosophy. I would also point out that the history of successful presidents who ran the US as a business is somewhere around zero in the modern era, adding additional credence to the fact that my opinion is widely shared by others and is borne out by the historical record.
Also, I'd appreciate it if you dropped the tired 'you don't have the experience to have an opinion' line. The percentage of those who have ran major companies in the US is far less then 1%, yet you seem to believe that those who have not have no ability to find out information pertaining to the ethics and morality and reality of doing so. This is ridiculous, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of it, as it is also condescending.
Cycloptichorn
on edit: I meant to specifically address this:
Quote:
Knowing when to walk away from a bad bet, an underperforming investment, a losing campaign or a failed policy is a key element of successful leadership in every area of human endeavor from poker to business investment, military strategy or politics
But, not in governance. You see, you can't just 'walk away' from your constituents, as they don't go away. They begin to create problems. Those problems cost money, lots of money, as well as productivity. When in business you see a bad deal, you cut your losses. We can't do that in governance, in terms of people, b/c our losses will cut us back just as hard if we try.
Naturally, this problem is one of the fundamental tensions in governance: to provide some sort of social order and relief of problems without becoming completely beholden to the citizen's every need. Those who seek to promote a business management style of governance have a duty to show that they understand this tension, and will not err on the side of simply pretending that the problems addressed by certain social programs will vanish if we cut those programs. To be fair to Romney, I haven't seen too much idiocy from him on this issue, but Giuliani makes this error every time he opens his mouth.
