|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24712 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:08 PM
|
Don17000
The cheaper service is actually better for the USPS, as raising the price means more people switch to electronic alternatives, fewer people use it, and less revenue.
Yes, it is better for any business to provide the cheapest possible service.
The cost per person of the post office is $246 per year. $221 comes from service and the remaining $25 is unfunded. $75.8 billion in expenses of which $68 billion is paid for.
So, if the post office charges another $25 for its service I am paying that up front and realize the cost of the post office services.
If the federal gov't uses tax payer money to make up that $25, I receive cheap service at one end, and still pay for it at the other end. So, in this case it would be artificially cheaper service.
Or look at it this way. It costs $75.8 billion to operate the post office. The post office could provide free service and the federal gov't uses tax dollars to pay for it. So, am I actually getting free service? No, I am still paying for it, whether up front or behind the back.
Yes, you pay to use a po box, but don't pay if you get home delivery.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,208
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24711 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 3:02 PM
|
> longball38884
>
> You can opt out of going to a supermarket all
> together. You can't do that with the government. When
> you do business with a supermarket there is a
> contract. Not so with a government, any
> government.
>
> By living or working in a state, you agree to obey
> their laws. A contract is created when you choose to
> live there, or choose to work there. If either side
> does not perform their obligations, then each can use
> the court to be reimburst.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. There is no contract between residents and government. There is no meeting of the minds. You have no choice but to obey the laws. There is no mutual exchange. You are not exchanging taxes for services. The government is not obligated to provide you with ANYTHING by virtue of them taking your tax dollars.
You cannot sue the government for failing to protect your home when you're burglarized. Not even if your taxes have been fully paid. You cannot sue the state when you blow a tire due to a pothole in the road.
>
> When you are passing through a government, any
> government (as in when you are traveling or visiting)
> you are obligated to abide by their laws whether you
> know what they are or not. Got that? A "meeting of
> the minds" is fucking irrelevant. There is no
> contract. There is no business transaction.
> None.
>
> As I enter into that place, I agree to follow those
> laws. If I don't I can be punished. If I enter a
> supermarket and don't buy anything, there is still
> obligations on both sides that must be performed. By
> entering the supermarket, I agree to obey their
> rules, just as I enter a state, I agree to obey their
> rules.
The supermarket is a business. It can be held liable if you are injured on its premises. Governments are not liable for anything ever. They are not businesses. You do not have an expectation of anything and you cannot sue.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24710 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 2:35 PM
|
Don17000
Nope. There were no investments. There was no business. It was just a corporation, formed as a contingency against anticipated events which never occurred. In the end, there was nothing for it to do.
You had wrote they had shares tranfers to the corp. Did they keep the corp. going each year, meaning they meant the requirements, such as meetings, or once the transaction fell through, they ended the corporation?
The purpose of the corporation, the business of the corporation was to buy or invest in other companies. Your father used it for tax purposes, but each corporation created must provide in the articles of incorporation, its purpose.
One such corporation is a mutual benefit corporation, where the sole purpose is to serve the needs of its members. An example that I was able to find was a golf club. This would be considered nonprofit, but not a charity. The members create this club, under this type of corp. in order to create a golf club and course. In return for their investment and dues, they have a private golf club only open to members, and with payment of their dues, the club provides the use of the course.
I am not sure if a corp. can exist without doing anything. I would assume as long as they pay the fee and have the meetings, they'll continue. A car is still a form of transportation, no matter how it is used. Because the corp. did not or was unable to perform its initial purpose, does not change the fact that a corporation is a form of business, like I wrote. Now, if I take your claims, and my exact statement, a corporation is a form of business, I do not state that every corporation is a business. But, since every corp provides a service, in exchange for something of value it is a business. Because the corp is not providing a service at the moment does not mean it's not a business.
I agree a corporation can be a piece of paper, but there are laws and regulations that must be followed in order for the corp to exist. If they are not followed, it can be killed. If a corporation does nothing, and files the proper financial statements showing they don't perform any type of service or product and has not assets, I am not sure, but I think that corp would not be allowed to exist.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,979
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24709 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:41 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> > The post office is owned by the federal gov't,
> and is
> > basically operated by it. If I pay more for the
> > service or our tax dollars go toward it, would not
>
> > change how much it costs per person to operate.
>
> They get no tax dollars, and the Federal government
> doesn't own them. They are independent, since 1971.
> The only real connection is that the President
> appoints 9 of the 11 governors, with Senate consent.
> Of the other two, the chairman is selected by the 9,
> and deputy chair is selected by the other 10.
>
> I understand that. My point was that you prefer the
> post office run to provide cheap service, whether or
> not it makes a profit. Running at a loss will have
> to be made up from some where. I say have those
> costs up front, paid for through the service they
> provide, you prefer to have it paid for by gov't.
> Which tells us we get a cheap service, but hides our
> r costs.
>
> If you buy or lease a car and have a monthly payment
> of $200, that's great, nice and low. But, at the end
> of the loan you have a balloon payment of $5000, so
> was the car any cheaper, and in reality your monthly
> payments are not so low.
>
> This year the post office fell short by $7.8 billion,
> of which $4 billion is for pensions, which at least
> for this year was allowed not to be paid. So, more
> gov't accounting trickery. They face the same for
> next year. So, we could keep current postal rates
> and pay the $7.8 billion, or we could pay a rate that
> would emcompass the $7.8 billion. So, we can pay it
> up front and know we are, or we can be told how cheap
> a service they provide us, while paying the money at
> the back end.
>
The cheaper service is actually better for the USPS, as raising the price means more people switch to electronic alternatives, fewer people use it, and less revenue.
> Realize that the costs are and will be spread over
> anyone who has a mail box, and any business that does
> to.
>
> As I stated, if you get home delivery, you don't pay,
> but if you have a PO Box you will. So, why not
> charge a fee to everyone with a mail box?(change the
> law if necessary)
>
They already do. The PO Box has a rental fee, varying according to box size.
> If the the post office breaks even, fine, if they can
> make a profit great. It would be better to make a
> profit, so that in the future they have a slush fund.
> Or I suppose the money could just go toward the
> e debt.
>
> > Just as a business may choose to use the most
> > profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> > political.
> >
> No, a lot of the time, they just don't. If they did,
> they would not raise taxes as often as they do. And
> they would have passed a health care bill a long time
> ago. Lobbyists would have no clout at all unless they
> could deliver votes.
>
> The reason it healthcare has not been done, is
> because it was not politically popular. Depending on
> how the question is framed, determines what type of
> healthcare reform they want.
>
It has always been politically popular. But in the past, it was opposed mostly by lobbyists from the insurance industry. This year, it's those same lobbyists who are generating the opposition.
> In the end politicians serve their political
> interests. Even a broken clock is write twice a day.
It's right at least 24 times a day, actually.... about the time in each time zone in the world.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24708 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:13 PM
|
longball38884
You can opt out of going to a supermarket all together. You can't do that with the government. When you do business with a supermarket there is a contract. Not so with a government, any government.
By living or working in a state, you agree to obey their laws. A contract is created when you choose to live there, or choose to work there. If either side does not perform their obligations, then each can use the court to be reimburst.
When you are passing through a government, any government (as in when you are traveling or visiting) you are obligated to abide by their laws whether you know what they are or not. Got that? A "meeting of the minds" is fucking irrelevant. There is no contract. There is no business transaction. None.
As I enter into that place, I agree to follow those laws. If I don't I can be punished. If I enter a supermarket and don't buy anything, there is still obligations on both sides that must be performed. By entering the supermarket, I agree to obey their rules, just as I enter a state, I agree to obey their rules.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,208
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24707 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 11:52 AM
|
> In the end politicians serve their political
> interests. Even a broken clock is write twice a day.
60 minutes x 24 hours = 1440. Twice out of 1440. Wonderful.
Politicians serve what they THINK are their political interests and 2 times out of 1440 it'll be what is actually in the best interests of the country.
Ain't America great?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24706 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 11:24 AM
|
Don17000
> The post office is owned by the federal gov't, and is
> basically operated by it. If I pay more for the
> service or our tax dollars go toward it, would not
> change how much it costs per person to operate.
They get no tax dollars, and the Federal government doesn't own them. They are independent, since 1971. The only real connection is that the President appoints 9 of the 11 governors, with Senate consent. Of the other two, the chairman is selected by the 9, and deputy chair is selected by the other 10.
I understand that. My point was that you prefer the post office run to provide cheap service, whether or not it makes a profit. Running at a loss will have to be made up from some where. I say have those costs up front, paid for through the service they provide, you prefer to have it paid for by gov't. Which tells us we get a cheap service, but hides our costs.
If you buy or lease a car and have a monthly payment of $200, that's great, nice and low. But, at the end of the loan you have a balloon payment of $5000, so was the car any cheaper, and in reality your monthly payments are not so low.
This year the post office fell short by $7.8 billion, of which $4 billion is for pensions, which at least for this year was allowed not to be paid. So, more gov't accounting trickery. They face the same for next year. So, we could keep current postal rates and pay the $7.8 billion, or we could pay a rate that would emcompass the $7.8 billion. So, we can pay it up front and know we are, or we can be told how cheap a service they provide us, while paying the money at the back end.
Realize that the costs are and will be spread over anyone who has a mail box, and any business that does to.
As I stated, if you get home delivery, you don't pay, but if you have a PO Box you will. So, why not charge a fee to everyone with a mail box?(change the law if necessary)
If the the post office breaks even, fine, if they can make a profit great. It would be better to make a profit, so that in the future they have a slush fund. Or I suppose the money could just go toward the debt.
> Just as a business may choose to use the most
> profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> political.
>
No, a lot of the time, they just don't. If they did, they would not raise taxes as often as they do. And they would have passed a health care bill a long time ago. Lobbyists would have no clout at all unless they could deliver votes.
The reason it healthcare has not been done, is because it was not politically popular. Depending on how the question is framed, determines what type of healthcare reform they want.
In the end politicians serve their political interests. Even a broken clock is write twice a day.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,208
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24705 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 9:21 AM
|
> > Contract law 101. Every business engages in
> commerce
> > ie the buying and selling of goods or services.
> > Every sale is by definition a contract.
> >
> > Contracts must by law contain certain elements
> - a
> > meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance,
> mutual
> > consideration, performance or delivery, good
> faith
> > etc.> http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_law
>
> > .html" target="_blank">Here's an elementary explanation.
> >
> > NONE of those elements are present when dealing
> with
> > the government. You may not opt out. You are
> given
> > no choice.
> >
> > The government is not a business.
>
> I can move to another state with lower or no taxes.
> I can also move to another country. I choose to
> o live somewhere, just as I choose to shop at a
> supermarket.
You can opt out of going to a supermarket all together. You can't do that with the government. When you do business with a supermarket there is a contract. Not so with a government, any government.
>
> As I stated, it may not mean the definition
> requirements, but a state and a gov't act as
> businesses.
No they do not.
>
> By becoming a citizen of a state, I agree, a contract
> is formed in which I accept their laws and
> regulations. In return for my paying taxes, the
> state provides different services, such as a pd, fd,
> builds and maintain roads. If I believe such
> services are not being provided correctly I can bring
> a grievance against the state.
When you are passing through a government, any government (as in when you are traveling or visiting) you are obligated to abide by their laws whether you know what they are or not. Got that? A "meeting of the minds" is fucking irrelevant. There is no contract. There is no business transaction. None.
For instance if you ever come to Gaylord, MI (home of some of the best golf courses in the world) you are obligated to have a visible, current rabies tag on your dog's collar. $100 fine......do it more than once and they'll take your dog.
The difference between a government and a business is fundamental. When dealing with a business both sides MUST know and agree on all transactions. When dealing with a government that is irrelevant. Whether or not you are even aware of what your obligations are is irrelevant.
Government is NOT a business.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,706
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24704 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 6:02 AM
|
I see that the Senate's version of a healthcare bill is going forward.
While I don't agree with the State by State opt out, doesn't that amount to a trap for the Republicans at the State level?
The Democrats will wield that denial of the voters' benefits as a weapon against them.
People are always saying there is no difference between the two parties- but a Republican Opt-out will be a large difference- for the uninsured conservatives it will be a deal breaker.
I think that is why the Repugs are so shit scared of the bill.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,979
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24703 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 2:49 AM
|
>
> How someone runs a corporation does not matter. It
> is still a form of business. In your example the
> purpose of the business was investments.
Nope. There were no investments. There was no business. It was just a corporation, formed as a contingency against anticipated events which never occurred. In the end, there was nothing for it to do.
It meet the
> legal requirements to serve as a corporation and the
> service it provides was investmenting. Stocks are
> invests in a business, buying those shares, means you
> are investing in that company. That corp. provides
> the service of investment.
>
No investments were ever made, and it didn't have any money. Shares of other companies were simply signed over to it.
> Because someone misuses or abuses such thing, will
> not stop it from being a business or a form of
> business.
>
If it doesn't do any business, then it isn't one. It's just a corporation. Many times, its only purpose is to be a front, to hide tax liability. Its ownership is secret. If money is ever paid to it, it will be doing something. But if none ever is... then there is no business.
> A car is a form of transportation. If you use your
> car to kill someone, the car is a weapon, but does
> not change the fact that it is a form of
> transportation. Because it was misused, won't change
> it's purpose, function, or form.
Not sure the analogy holds. If the car was never used, acquired with the intention to only be used in making a movie in which the car would be destroyed, then it isn't a form of transportation, it's a stage prop; or if acquired only as an objet d'art... such as 1927 Hispano-Suiza, or a 1930 Deusenberg to be on display in a collection... is it still a form of transportation, or a collectible artwork?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,979
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24702 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 2:35 AM
|
> Don17000
>
> No, the cost of health care does not include
> insurance. If you're wondering why not...
>
> When you look to see how much a car will cost you
> each month, you will include the cost of insurance.
> So, why not with health insurance?
>
How about, because you can live and work without health insurance, but it's illegal to acquire a car without any?
And how about because most insurers won't sell you a full comprehensive insurance policy if you don't have a car?
> Most people pay insurance, which opens the gate to
> healthcare.
But they can still get health care without insurance, and they can pay for insurance without getting any health care.
The cost of insurance is how most people
> will pay for their care.
That, and the co-pays and deductibles.
Whether or not you use your
> insurance will not change that you are paying for
> health insurance, or that you are incurring costs
> related to healthcare.
>
> With car insurance, the less you use it, the better a
> driver you are, the less you will pay. With health
> insurance your use and health are meaningless.
Maybe with yours, although I think you're wrong here. With mine, there are discounts offered to non-smokers. And preexisting conditions mean they offer less coverage, or maybe none at all. Heavy use of health insurance may mean they'll deny the claims and drop you.
With
> the new healthcare bill, a person in bad health
> cannot be charged more for insurance, than someone
> who is healthy. Add in that people with preexisting
> conditions cannot be denied, no lifetime maxes, that
> will mean that the way in which people incurr the
> cost of healthcare, their insurance rate will rise.
>
But if you're adding those in, you also must subtract the effect of cost-shifting, i.e., the insurers will pay only for their policyholder's coverage, and not also for that of the uninsured, (who are often uninsured only because the insurers didn't want to cover them.)
>
> To the car manufacturer the insurance is not
> included, but for the person purchasing the car, it
> does.
>
And the price of vodka in Russia is less than the price of bourbon in Kentucky. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, either.
> Whether or not I use the insurance will not change
> that my health care cost is what I pay for
> insurance.
>
Actually, it does. Your health insurance is not the cost of your healthcare, it's just the cost of access thereto.
> I get what you are saying. You are keeping insurance
> costs, separate from what is paid out for healthcare.
> But, for most the cost of healthcare is the cost of
> f insurance.
>
There are too many instances where insurance is just money you pay on top of what you spend on healthcare. Deductibles, copays, I see many cases where the patient ends up paying more than the insurer does. I see cases where the insurer pays nothing, and the patient paid it all, plus paid for the insurance. And then there are preexisting conditions, non-covered services, etc.
> We have a healthcare system that is under
> employed.
> > As we add more people to the field the demand for
> > r their services will increase, meaning the costs
> > will.
>
> You keep saying this, but you don't back it up with
> anything. Health care is one of those fields where it
> just may not apply the way it does in buying other
> services. In fact, taking the lesser need for
> cost-shifting into account, the opposite effect is
> more likely.
>
> At the current time, healthcare professionals are in
> demand. It is the one industry that continues to
> grow and is expected to keep growing. That is fact.
> I am sure you have seen the articles and surveys.
> . Because their skill is in demand, high demand,
> they will get higher salaries and more benefits,
> meaning the cost to employee these people will be
> higher. That is just as of today. Now we add all
> these people that now have the ability to pay for
> services into the system. The demand for healthcare
> professionals will not decrease but increase. Their
> demand will be even higher than it is today. That
> will result in higher costs.
>
> If you have a doctor's office, operated by just one
> doctor, it is conceivable to think his cost of
> business will not change. In the end it's marginal
> costs. If he has 100 patients and he adds 5, he
> probably will not incurr large expenses. But, if he
> adds 25 or 50 he may have to hire more nurese,
> another receptionist, billers, enlarge the waiting
> room, or need a larger office. That will increase
> his cost of business.
>
In gross terms. But actually, measured per patient, it will probably lessen the cost. But anyway, that's a cost of doing more business. Also, the doctor doesn't have to accept the additional patients.
> At some point the as always prices/costs will
> stabilize. But, over the next five to ten years,
> they will be rising.
>
Total cost. But the price per patient will likely decrease, as patients are no longer afraid to use their insurance lest the doctor find a preexisting condition that will cause the insurance to be canceled.
> As I understand it, at least from NY, is that the way
> in which premiums are determined is by county. So,
> one hospital may not experience a large increase, but
> if others in that area do, the premiums will rise.
>
I'm pretty sure it goes by the wage index in the Federal Register, which varies from one region to another.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24701 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 2:30 AM
|
s2grand
>
> Best of luck in cracking the rock.
At least we are having a meaningful debate and dialogue. Unlike you we just don't rant and rave. You prefer to put people down and call them names. It's easy to ridicule, that's what most do here, but maybe sometime you can join the debate. I'll be waiting.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24700 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 2:22 AM
|
DaNihilist
>
> Let me guess. A conservative (which is to say GOP)
> politician and/or a conservative business shill.
> Tell me (honestly), do they at least PAY you
> u (however little) to post here, or do you do it with
> the misguided belief that someday there'll actually
> be a pittance in it for you as well?
>
> Business School shit goes cheap these days. I
> wouldn't hold out for much if I were you.
>
> DaN
So, what don't you like about the discussion?
Clearly you don't know me or what ideas or beliefs I have.
I believe everyone should have health insurance.
I believe insurance companies have acted in bad faith and there are certain ways in which the gov't can control/ regulate in order to fix those inequities
I also believe it is not the gov't's job to provide healthcare
I believe there is a right time to raise taxes and a wrong time.
I believe there is time to increase regulations and remove regulations.
The gov't does have a stake in ensuring their citizens are educated, safe, and healthy, but that does not mean they need to control them
I think states need to do more, not the federal gov't
The role of the federal gov't should be to help states provide those services
The federal gov't was not meant to be all powerful
The more the federal gov't controls the less freedom we have
I want a competent, efficient, and effective gov't
I am not registered with any party, but do lean right
But, I also realize that governing based on party philosophy will not be successful, because one size does not fit all
As an example, toward the late 90's it would have been fine to raise taxes, since the increase would not have been too significant since so much money was being made. The reason you would raise taxes at this time would be so that in the future, when necessary to lower taxes, the decrease would be significant enough to work. Just as it would have been fine to increase regulation in the late 90's and early 00's. So, that at a future time decreasing regulations would create growth.
But, in the end neither party cares about managing correctly, they are just concerned with their power, and keeping their seats. Corruption, lying, and politics are not unique to one party.
I would rather be right, and hated, then wrong and be liked.
I am a NY Mets fan. I don't like every move they make or every player they have. That does not mean I don't root for other players on different teams.
In the end my heart is republican, does not mean I like or root for everything they do, but it does not mean I don't like things democrats do.
You read my posts here, on a very liberal, and mostly liberal site, so my opinions seem far right.
--
Edited by sunaz at 11/20/2009 11:26 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24699 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:47 AM
|
Don17000
> >
> > No, it isn't. A corporation is just an
> > artificially created entity. It doesn't have to
> do
> > any business, doesn't have to own anything, pay
> > anything, or have any money. It just has to be
> > registered in the records of the state wherein
> it's
> > incorporated. You can form a corporation and
> never do
> > a thing with it. The corporation still exists.
> >
> > A business can be a form of corporation, but
> doesn't
> > have to be.
> >
> > Are you kinding me? A corporation is a form of
> > business. It is a type of business. It is a
> form of
> > ownership of a business.
> >
> No, I'm not kidding you. A corporation is only a
> construct on paper. There are thousands of shell
> corporations created every year, corporations which
> are not businesses, and which do no business. Most
> of them are offshore, in places like Panama or the
> Caymans, or Netherlands Antilles.
>
> I know this, because my father had a Swiss and a
> Panamanian one when he was alive. He formed them to
> o eventually receive funds from a business deal he
> was working on, but the deal, which also involved a
> Brazilian company was never completed. The others in
> the deal had similar corporations in Bermuda and
> Curacao.
>
> These corporations' only purposes were to own shares
> of another corporation. Others are formed, whose
> only purpose is to be a barrier to taxation. It does
> no business, it owns nothing except shares of another
> corporation, it has no money or other assets; it has
> directors who do meet only once a year because the
> law requires it, and the directors meet, decide they
> have nothing to discuss, and adjourn.
How someone runs a corporation does not matter. It is still a form of business. In your example the purpose of the business was investments. It meet the legal requirements to serve as a corporation and the service it provides was investmenting. Stocks are invests in a business, buying those shares, means you are investing in that company. That corp. provides the service of investment.
Because someone misuses or abuses such thing, will not stop it from being a business or a form of business.
A car is a form of transportation. If you use your car to kill someone, the car is a weapon, but does not change the fact that it is a form of transportation. Because it was misused, won't change it's purpose, function, or form.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24698 of 24727)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 1:36 AM
|
Don17000
They have similarities, granted. But also dissimilarities. A business produces goods or provides services, and it generates most of its revenue from the sale of those goods and services. Its customers do not have to do business, and if they can decline services don't want and not incur the expense, or if they didn't like the way the services were provided, they can refuse to pay, it's only a civil matter.
I can choose what state, city, or town to live in. Just as I can choose where I shop. A state is like Sam's club. I must pay a membership fee in order to shop their. In order for me to live in a state, it requires membership fees, which provides me with services. Part of the service that a state provides is the ability to do business, the most important of which is maintaining roads.
If I am not happy with a state I can leave.
A government may also provide goods and services, but that accounts for the bulk of its expenses, and actually very little if any, of its revenue. Its revenue comes from taxation. The taxation must be paid whether any services are used or not, and it doesn't matter if the customer is satisfied with the services or goods provided, the customer must still pay. Failure to do so is a punishable offense.
Yes, but I can lobby the state to change laws and improve service. I can also use the court system to bring a grievance against the state. Just this week seven people sued the Federal Gov't/Army Eng. for failure to properly maintain the levies in NO. I also can use my vote and voice to change things.
Take a mall for instance. There are certain rules that must be followed, failure to do so can result in a punishment or removal from the mall. Whether or not you buy something, those rules will still apply.
No, a state should not be run like a business, unless its purpose is the same. The purpose of a business is to generate profit. It cannot exist simply to serve the public. A business must serve itself first.
That is not true. A non profit serves the public. But, a state's number one priority is the state. The state is of course made up of those that choose to live or do business there. So, in order for a state to be productive, it must provide certain services and products upon which people deem appropriate to live and due business. Just as a business must provide a service and product that is deemed appropriate.
A state needs revenues in order to provider services, without these revenues, those services will not be available. If a business does the samething, it will fail, just as a state will.
The state serves itself first. A state must of course do what is in the best interest of the state.
|
|
|
|
|
