If you owned a business, who would you hire to run it: Obama or Romney?

[gallantwarrior]

I'd hire Obama. Mr. Etch-a-Sketch doesn't come off as the type who could mentor or motivate staff. He reminds me of Ken LAY.

So, you're saying your company runs an aggressive affirmative action hiring policy? Or that you hire "undocumented aliens"?

 

[The T]

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

Exactly. This is what bothers me about the assumption that success in business predicts good political leadership. There may be some general leadership skills that crossover, but running a business is a very different activity that governing a nation. I wouldn't want them approached in the same way.

Ever seen the politics in business? Tow the line or you're OUT.

The objective in ANY business is to be successful for the purpose of existence of that company, and all profit from it.

The Founders entrusted us with a Republic with this in mind.

WHY is government any different?

 

[Katzndogz]

I'd hire Obama. Mr. Etch-a-Sketch doesn't come off as the type who could mentor or motivate staff. He reminds me of Ken LAY.

Both of whom mentored and motivated a considerable staff. Enron failed because Bush was in the white house and Ken Lay was prosecuted. If Enron happened with obama in the white house, Enron would have been bailed out and Ken Lay would be an important democrtic donor.

 

[dblack]

WHY is government any different?

Because government is not a business and has an entirely different purpose. We create government to protect our rights - primarily through law enforcement and defense - not to maximize revenue and minimize expenses. It's fine to say the we need leaders who can balance the budget and make efficient use of our tax dollars, but their primary focus should be on (and limited to) the constitutional responsibilities of government.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Increased revenue does not increase profit. So as a business owner, you take 150 jobs that you know will lose money, you have increased your revenue but eventually you have to pay the bills.

I'm not sure exactly what kind of comparison you're trying to make, but you seem to be using a silly example either way. If, as a business owner, you accept a job that is going to incur a net loss, then in most cases you're doing it wrong. Price the job at a profitable margin.

That being said, there are possible times when it could be more advantageous to do what you're saying, for the long run picture. Let's say you have a contract that will be finalized, or a payment that will be received, at a certain date, but before then you're projecting that your funds will run out and you're going to have to take a loan to cover things in the meantime. If you can secure a job in the meantime that will give you the cash on hand to continue paying your bills, it could still be advantageous to accept the loss if that loss were less than what it would cost in interest to take out the loan. So yes, the individual piece of revenue might not itself be profitable in and of itself. But if it still ends up saving you money over the alternative loan, then it's still generated its own type of profit.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/216596-us-treasury-inspector-general-we-had-one-day-to-review-528-million-solyndra-loan.html#post5131995

This link illustrates that Solyndra might still be in business if Obama lived up to his promise to fulfill a govt. contract. If Obama can't even keep a business afloat with $500 M and another blank check then why the h would anybody want him running their business?

 

[Vidi]

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

Exactly. This is what bothers me about the assumption that success in business predicts good political leadership. There may be some general leadership skills that crossover, but running a business is a very different activity that governing a nation. I wouldn't want them approached in the same way.

Ever seen the politics in business? Tow the line or you're OUT.

The objective in ANY business is to be successful for the purpose of existence of that company, and all profit from it.

The Founders entrusted us with a Republic with this in mind.

WHY is government any different?

You obviously dont work for a multinational. Every single day I see management waste time and money and then get rewarded for it. It's pathetic how unbusinesslike big business has become.

 

[Vidi]

Increased revenue does not increase profit. So as a business owner, you take 150 jobs that you know will lose money, you have increased your revenue but eventually you have to pay the bills.

Increased revenue doesn't increase profit?

Not necessarily.

Revenue is simply another word for income. It is not profit until it exceeds costs.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Increased revenue does not increase profit. So as a business owner, you take 150 jobs that you know will lose money, you have increased your revenue but eventually you have to pay the bills.

Increased revenue doesn't increase profit?

It doesn't always.

For example, say the price of gas goes from $2.00 to $4.00 per gallon but sales do not decline.

That would be a 100% increase in revenue.

Now say the expense of marketing gas also rose $2.00/gallon in that time...that would mean that while revenues rose 100% profits remained flat.