Why Obama is wrong when he says business needs the government

[M14 Shooter]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist.

False. Your local drug dealer and gun runner - all of whom conduct their business in direct oppoition to the rules regulating society - disprove your notion.

 

[Luissa]

Here is the first link on Google for beef industry quality control.

Beef Quality Assurance - Home

The USDA does grade beef, but that has nothing to do with quality control.

I already posted what an ASI does to make my point that they do not actually inspect aircraft, want to try again?

And grading beef has everything to do with quality control. Lol Grading beef has to do with grading the quality of the beef.
And I don't care where you worked, my brother is a cattle rancher and my mom was a lobbyist for the cattle ranchers in the 70s. Your point?

No, it is a small part of quality control. The FDA does not watch over every step of the process of a cow being raised from a calf to be slaughtered for meat. Nor does it watch over every step of the process of that meat being cut, and then cooked and served. If they did their would be an FDA inspector in every restaurant, butcher shop, grocery store, and home in the US.

So they are involved in quality control?
Your problem is you make a very black and white statement, usually a false one.
You shouldn't have said the government has no involvement in quality control, you should have said the government has only a small role. But you did not, so your statement and no one else's is false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"FAA inspectors take their duties very seriously. In addition to inspecting maintenance logs and safety records, these inspectors also physically examine aircraft to ensure that they are safe to fly. FAA inspectors may decide to ground aircraft until safety issues are addressed, and the agency is able to fine violators to ensure that they are penalized for lapses in safety. FAA agents can also recognize people with a particularly good record in the industry, ranging from especially safe pilots to skilled ground crew, through the FAA Wings Program."
What is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)? - mobile wiseGEEK

And from what you posted.
(c) inspecting aircraft and related equipment for airworthiness; and (d)
What you said:
" ASI does to make my point that they do not actually inspect aircraft, want to try again"

Are you purposely lying to prove your point?

That makes me feel so safe, FAA inspectors take their job seriously. I thought they spent their entire day getting drunk on the public dime.

Every pilot I know does a walk through and visual check of his aircraft before takeoff. This checklist takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour, and that is for nothing larger than a business jet. At best an FAA inspector runs through a checklist when he does an inspection. He does not personally X-ray the entire fuselage looking for micro-fractures, he does not personally tear down each engine to make sure there is no excessive wear. There is no ******* way on God's green Earth he can do every single check necessary to certify a single 747 as airworthy, it would take him years.

Think about what you are saying for once in your pathetic life.

My pathetic life?

And think about what you are saying. You said they did not inspect planes, but posted information that proved what you said was wrong. It's not my problem you have no clue what you are talking about, and keep posting your opinion as fact.
Other than needing to read everything in posts of mine you decide to respond to, you also need to read everything you post.
My pathetic life, ha! Wow! You are a hack.

None of the information I posted said I am wrong. What the information I posted said is that they develop regulations and oversee facilites that inspect planes. Explain to me how any one man can personally inspect an entire 747 before you have an aneurism trying to convince yourself that I don't know what I am talking about.

 

[regent]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist. Business, however, wants no rules or regulations on business; the rules cut into business profits. Business then gives billions of its profits to politicans to pass laws to eliminate the rules.

The drug trade exists despite the fact that the only regulation of it is an attempt to totally eradicate it. Not only that, it manages to deliver a product that doesn't kill everyone who uses it, and it is actually less expensive and easier to get than many regulated drugs.

You seriously need to examine just how stupid you sound when you spout idiotic sound bites.

I repeat, business could not exist if there were no rules regulating society. If the drug trade were the only US business you might have a point but there just might be a few more businesses in America than the drug trade, and most legal and most regulated.

 

[saveliberty]

Fair to say your comment is not a universal truth regent?

Also, I commented that business can benefit from no rules. No patents, name restrictions and so on. Most days, most businesses do not need government. That statement is far more truthful than Obama's implication.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Knowledge is not the issue. Capability is. You have a house that sits 20 miles from the waste treatment plant. How does your waste get from point a to point b? Are you going to build your own pipe? Should we have 50 different companies involved in buidling the pipes for us with no coordination? Your pipe doesn't connect with your neighbor's pipe and no one knows where anything is buried? What if your neighbor decides they will just dump their waste in their front yard, right next to where your children play.

I live in the country and have a well and a septic tank. But even I would be drastically affected if the town I am next to didn't have control over its waste treatment. There are some things which are just too important to leave to the market place to resolve.

Excuse me, but knowledge is the issue when someone claims that the public sector is more knowledgeable. Since you never claimed that, and actually agree with me, there is no further need for me to prove you wrong.

You haven't proven anyone was wrong in this thread, you haven't even proven Obama is wrong. I would quit now, you look foolish at this point.

Tuck insisted that the State of California sold the bonds and quoted my post whee it said that the bonds were sold by the local counties, that makes him wrong.

Jones said that the public sector is more knowledgeable about some things than the private sector, and I challenged him to name some. Unless you want to step in and try to defend that absurd statement I have no need to prove you wrong about that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist. Business, however, wants no rules or regulations on business; the rules cut into business profits. Business then gives billions of its profits to politicans to pass laws to eliminate the rules.

The drug trade exists despite the fact that the only regulation of it is an attempt to totally eradicate it. Not only that, it manages to deliver a product that doesn't kill everyone who uses it, and it is actually less expensive and easier to get than many regulated drugs.

You seriously need to examine just how stupid you sound when you spout idiotic sound bites.

I repeat, business could not exist if there were no rules regulating society

The fact that it -does- exist outside the rules regulating society disproves your assertion regardless of how many times you repeat it.
Regulation might make it -easier- to conduct business, but is not -necessary- for it.

 

[Nosmo King]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist.

False. Your local drug dealer and gun runner - all of whom conduct their business in direct oppoition to the rules regulating society - disprove your notion.

Setting the bar low, aren't you?

 

[Luissa]

That makes me feel so safe, FAA inspectors take their job seriously. I thought they spent their entire day getting drunk on the public dime.

Every pilot I know does a walk through and visual check of his aircraft before takeoff. This checklist takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour, and that is for nothing larger than a business jet. At best an FAA inspector runs through a checklist when he does an inspection. He does not personally X-ray the entire fuselage looking for micro-fractures, he does not personally tear down each engine to make sure there is no excessive wear. There is no ******* way on God's green Earth he can do every single check necessary to certify a single 747 as airworthy, it would take him years.

Think about what you are saying for once in your pathetic life.

My pathetic life?

And think about what you are saying. You said they did not inspect planes, but posted information that proved what you said was wrong. It's not my problem you have no clue what you are talking about, and keep posting your opinion as fact.
Other than needing to read everything in posts of mine you decide to respond to, you also need to read everything you post.
My pathetic life, ha! Wow! You are a hack.

None of the information I posted said I am wrong. What the information I posted said is that they develop regulations and oversee facilites that inspect planes. Explain to me how any one man can personally inspect an entire 747 before you have an aneurism trying to convince yourself that I don't know what I am talking about.

You also posted information that said they inspect planes, and inspect them for airworthiness. Your original claim was they do not inspect planes at all. I never made the claim one man inspects, you brought that up, and I am still wondering why.
Therefore I do not need to explain anything, all I did was prove you made a false statement.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And grading beef has everything to do with quality control. Lol Grading beef has to do with grading the quality of the beef.
And I don't care where you worked, my brother is a cattle rancher and my mom was a lobbyist for the cattle ranchers in the 70s. Your point?

No, it is a small part of quality control. The FDA does not watch over every step of the process of a cow being raised from a calf to be slaughtered for meat. Nor does it watch over every step of the process of that meat being cut, and then cooked and served. If they did their would be an FDA inspector in every restaurant, butcher shop, grocery store, and home in the US.

So they are involved in quality control?
Your problem is you make a very black and white statement, usually a false one.
You shouldn't have said the government has no involvement in quality control, you should have said the government has only a small role. But you did not, so your statement and no one else's is false.

The FDA is not involved in the beef grading system.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist. Business, however, wants no rules or regulations on business; the rules cut into business profits. Business then gives billions of its profits to politicans to pass laws to eliminate the rules.

The drug trade exists despite the fact that the only regulation of it is an attempt to totally eradicate it. Not only that, it manages to deliver a product that doesn't kill everyone who uses it, and it is actually less expensive and easier to get than many regulated drugs.

You seriously need to examine just how stupid you sound when you spout idiotic sound bites.

I repeat, business could not exist if there were no rules regulating society. If the drug trade were the only US business you might have a point but there just might be a few more businesses in America than the drug trade, and most legal and most regulated.

The rules you are so fond off say the drug trade is illegal. That means it exists outside the rules you say are necessary, yet it still exists.

 

[Luissa]

I also trying to figure out why you felt the need to call my life pathetic. How about you answer that one for me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If there were no rules regulating society, business could not exist.

False. Your local drug dealer and gun runner - all of whom conduct their business in direct oppoition to the rules regulating society - disprove your notion.

Setting the bar low, aren't you?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. His assertion is disproven by the examples I cited - feel free to argue otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My pathetic life?

And think about what you are saying. You said they did not inspect planes, but posted information that proved what you said was wrong. It's not my problem you have no clue what you are talking about, and keep posting your opinion as fact.
Other than needing to read everything in posts of mine you decide to respond to, you also need to read everything you post.
My pathetic life, ha! Wow! You are a hack.

None of the information I posted said I am wrong. What the information I posted said is that they develop regulations and oversee facilites that inspect planes. Explain to me how any one man can personally inspect an entire 747 before you have an aneurism trying to convince yourself that I don't know what I am talking about.

You also posted information that said they inspect planes, and inspect them for airworthiness. Your original claim was they do not inspect planes at all. I never made the claim one man inspects, you brought that up, and I am still wondering why.
Therefore I do not need to explain anything, all I did was prove you made a false statement.

They do that by inspecting maintenance records and the the facility that does the maintenance. The only other way they could possible check that plane is by personally inspecting each of the thousands of parts on that plane. Do you think they do that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I also trying to figure out why you felt the need to call my life pathetic. How about you answer that one for me.

It has to be pathetic if you think an inspector that is responsible for an entire airport has time to personally check every plane that flies into or out of it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Excuse me?

First, nothing you have listed there is something the government knows best, some of them are not even things the government actually does. The ones that the government actually does do are things the government has declared are part of its monopoly of force.

Second, the government, the public sector, often calls in experts from the private sector to get advice on the best way to deliver those services because the public sector is run by a bunch of lawyers, not by people that actually understand the issues behind any of the services they have decided are exclusively in their purview,

I want to know what issues the public sector knows better than the private sector, not what services the public sector provides. Since you haven't named a single one I would definitely say I want more.

You are going to have to define what you mean by "issues".

Issues are issues. Jones made the absurd claim that the public sector knows some things better than the private sector knows them, I challenged him to provide examples. You chose to interpret my challenge as showing what services the public sector provides that the private sector does not. You provided no evidence that they even do a better job than the private sector at providing those services, you just assume they do.

a. A point or matter of discussion, debate, or dispute
b. A matter of public concern
c. A misgiving, objection, or complain
d. The essential point; crux
e. A culminating point leading to a decision

Let us take just one of your examples, water and sewer services. LEaving aside the fact that plenty of people in this country get along without government supplied water or sewer services, the basic issues are how to supply clean water and removes soiled water from a home or apartment. (Before someone pops in and scolds me for not understanding the issues here, I will admit I don't. Just trying to make a point.) Can you honestly tell me you don't think anyone in the private sector is at least as knowledgeable about the methods and concerns involved in providing water and sewage as the people in the public sector?

It's not just a matter of whether there are or aren't some private sector concerns are capable of providing services. The problem is also the profit motive too often outweighs public safety. It's funny that there have been, over the years, that bottled water is more of a problem than municipal water (btw, much bottled water with exotic names, is really just filtered municipal water). Why? Because government regulates and tests municipal supply for various toxins. Recall the events a few years ago when Perriere was found to have unacceptable levels of radon and arsenic.

Think of the outbreaks of e-coli of recent years. The greatest ones come from agricultural products, which are less regulated than meats. Do you really want to apply that to meats? How about medicines? How many times have manufacturers fudged the results to FDA? I'd much rather have drugs developed using public clinical trials.

Now lets talk air safety. I can't see how a competitive system of controlling our air space, with well known and understood regulations, could be safer. Think of the majority of aircraft accidents. A major incident is a rarity. Planes are regularly inspected. All this while, private airports and air craft seem to have accidents every week.

Nope, some things, especially where safety is an issue, must be done in public interest and not for a profit motive.

 

[Katzndogz]

Government built Las Vegas.

It took this place, out in the middle of the desert where no one wanted to go and decided to build a city there. So it put in roads, sewers, added police and fire departments. Is that how it happened?

 

[Luissa]

None of the information I posted said I am wrong. What the information I posted said is that they develop regulations and oversee facilites that inspect planes. Explain to me how any one man can personally inspect an entire 747 before you have an aneurism trying to convince yourself that I don't know what I am talking about.

You also posted information that said they inspect planes, and inspect them for airworthiness. Your original claim was they do not inspect planes at all. I never made the claim one man inspects, you brought that up, and I am still wondering why.
Therefore I do not need to explain anything, all I did was prove you made a false statement.

They do that by inspecting maintenance records and the the facility that does the maintenance. The only other way they could possible check that plane is by personally inspecting each of the thousands of parts on that plane. Do you think they do that?

Your quote:

I already posted what an ASI does to make my point that they do not actually inspect aircraft, want to try again

Quote from the info you posted:

(c) inspecting aircraft and related equipment for airworthiness;

It doesn't matter what I think they do, you made a false statement.

 

[Nosmo King]

False. Your local drug dealer and gun runner - all of whom conduct their business in direct oppoition to the rules regulating society - disprove your notion.

Setting the bar low, aren't you?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. His assertion is disproven by the examples I cited - feel free to argue otherwise.

There are benefits to having a government. Our Founding Fathers understood that when the Articles of Confederation failed. Business is mentioned in the constitution as something worthy of protection.

If your paradigm for business success involves no government, I submit that those businesses will fail and wreck more havoc on society as a result of those failures than businesses enjoying the protection and regulation provided by the rule of government.

If you want Anarchy in the business community, use Somalia as your paradigm of opportunity.

 

[Luissa]

I also trying to figure out why you felt the need to call my life pathetic. How about you answer that one for me.

It has to be pathetic if you think an inspector that is responsible for an entire airport has time to personally check every plane that flies into or out of it.

Where did I state an inspectors inspects every plane that flies in and out? I only proved your statement that they do not inspect airplanes at all was false. When I did this I didn't make a claim your life is pathetic. But it makes me wonder why you would say something like. Do you often judge people's lives by what is said on a message board?