Support NeoGAF

[Delt31]

Everytime a trump supporter on here is called out, why do they always say they love liberal gaf like we're the ones not seeing their point.

b/c this forum is loaded with liberal view. If you only read these forums, you might come away with a very diff take on the world when in reality things like Trump winning the election happens b/c the gaf view and the real world view are very different. I like to keep it real that's all.

 

[Ourobolus]

Government is not a business. Nor should it be run like one.

The purpose of a business is to maximize profit. The purpose of a government is to maximize the well-being of its citizens.

Being good at one thing is not the same as being good at the other.

beat me to it

 

[tuxfool]

just mentioning that I'm not someone with no experience in what I'm saying. That's all.

I work in private enterprise. In fact most people here do. This does not elevate your position.

It provides you no more experience than anybody else here.

 

[Dierce]

b/c this forum is loaded with liberal view. If you only read these forums, you might come away with a very diff take on the world when in reality things like Trump winning the election happens b/c the gaf view and the real world view are very different. I like to keep it real that's all.

It is because of liberals and progressives that humanity has accomplished so much in the course of 2 centuries. Regressive, selfish views will only lead to destruction.

 

[……forgetit]

google GDP and obama and you will see what I'm referring to.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-claim-about-weak-economic-growth-under-obam/

Okay? I feel like my point still stands here.

 

[Delt31]

So you actually believe in trickle down economics, the models for which were the Reagan administration and more recently, Kansas. Because if someone is already a billionaire, they couldn't possibly be interested in self-enrichment? What?

I truly don't believe that the CEO of EXXON is taking this role so he can make deals for himself only so he turns into the richest man in the world. I really do believe that the bar is so low for these jobs that when these guys come in and turn it around, the amount of attention will do what they truly need to stay going - stoking the ego. That is fine by me.

Now if I had that much money, I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful. Money usually comes along with that but not in this case (IMO) - he'll drop salary by 99%. Again - my opinion but I don't believe they're doing this to become the richest man possible - it's the success they crave.

 

[Vena]

google GDP and obama and you will see what I'm referring to.

But he's still growing the economy. To "turn the ship around" on growth is a recession.

 

[xxracerxx]

I truly don't believe that the CEO of EXXON is taking this role so he can make deals for himself only so he turns into the richest man in the world. I really do believe that the bar is so low for these jobs that when these guys come in and turn it around, the amount of attention will do what they truly need to stay going - stoking the ego. That is fine by me.

Now if I had that much money, I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful. Money usually comes along with that but not in this case (IMO) - he'll drop salary by 99%. Again - my opinion but I don't believe they're doing this to become the richest man possible - it's the success they crave.

Just because these guys may not get a salary, doesn't mean money is not a main interest in their lives/careers.

 

[Flui111]

b/c this forum is loaded with liberal view. If you only read these forums, you might come away with a very diff take on the world when in reality things like Trump winning the election happens b/c the gaf view and the real world view are very different. I like to keep it real that's all.

By all means but let's see the statements that you have echoed today

"I have been very supportive of Trumps picks as I love injecting proven business folks who have no money incentive to do harm HOWEVER this is a terrible pick. Rick perry is borderline incompetent. Well I guess you can't have it all."

So you're basically saying the corrupt rich people that Trump has already picked into high ranking positions have no incentive to do what they already do, which is cause harm?? It's been proven that you cannot run a nation like a person runs a business but then you want both failed and semi successful business people at the helm of this country???

"yes - I am very supportive of business people who have proven themselves in the private industry to lead us to success. No question about it. No I'm not sarcastic. Private industry is as challenging as it gets. These guys are great at what they do and I want them to channel those skills and help this country be the best it can be. I'm in the private industry as well so I'm speaking from first hand knowledge.

Just b/c someone is very wealthy doesn't make them evil. B/c money is no incentive for these guys means they are doing it to be successful which is what makes them work hard. If they're successful, America is successful. Why would you not want this?"

Okay now i just know that either the mental gymnastics you do in your head to maintain this view are just absurd or pass me whatever you're smoking cause I want to be as woke as this in my life

 

[Delt31]

Government is not a business. Nor should it be run like one.

The purpose of a business is to maximize profit. The purpose of a government is to maximize the well-being of its citizens.

Being good at one thing is not the same as being good at the other.

I disagree as we're not a communist country. The government does have a role for the people but ultimately if it's not run financially right, it will cease to exist and pull down this country as well. You need financially sharp folks to get this country in the right direction and leading the charge should be qualified gov employees.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

I worked in the gov during an internship and although it was limited, I can tell you it was the biggest waste (judging the full time employees and how they worked). They were just milking the system.

Your brief stint in a public sector internship could not have possibly qualified you to pass that kind of judgment on public sector employees as a whole. When people like you make the assumption that every government institution has "fat to trim," you're talking about actual people who are dedicated to their jobs and work just as hard as the rest of us.

 

[Delt31]

Your brief stint in a public sector internship could not have possibly qualified you to pass that kind of judgment on public sector employees as a whole. When people like you make the assumption that every government institution has "fat to trim," you're talking about actual people who are dedicated to their jobs and work just as hard as the rest of us.

Wait what? I never said as a whole but no question the gov has fat to trim. I also never said all government workers are bad - don't twist my words. There are a lot of great people working in the government but there is SO much fat to trim, I'm not sure that's even an opinion. Again though - if you're going to say you can't comment on the gov waste b/c it offends those that are great, I don't agree.

 

[numble]

I truly don't believe that the CEO of EXXON is taking this role so he can make deals for himself only so he turns into the richest man in the world. I really do believe that the bar is so low for these jobs that when these guys come in and turn it around, the amount of attention will do what they truly need to stay going - stoking the ego. That is fine by me.

Now if I had that much money, I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful. Money usually comes along with that but not in this case (IMO) - he'll drop salary by 99%. Again - my opinion but I don't believe they're doing this to become the richest man possible - it's the success they crave.

If the position is not about money, but the "success", would you agree that past Secretary of States pursued lives of service with a desire for "success" over money? If you are focused on the fact that the CEO of EXXON is rich and successful, would you agree that John Kerry, who is richer than the CEO of EXXON, is equally as successful? If you take issue with how Kerry got his wealth, you should also take issue with Betsy DeVos became wealthy.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Your brief stint in a public sector internship could not have possibly qualified you to pass that kind of judgment on public sector employees as a whole. When people like you make the assumption that every government institution has "fat to trim," you're talking about actual people who are dedicated to their jobs and work just as hard as the rest of us.

Not only that, there have been plenty of studies and research into the realities of the private sector too. There's a reason the 9-5 type of schedule is seen as ancient and archaic in a lot of areas. People, even in the private sector, don't exactly always spend every minute of that schedule working productively.

They are very productive, as are a lot of people, but sometimes there isn't enough meaningful work to fill the time once the main goal has been completed. And nor is there much incentive other than not getting fired in going above and beyond - since wages have been depressed for so long and there are ultimately only a limited number of management and exec roles.

 

[Nafai1123]

I truly don't believe that the CEO of EXXON is taking this role so he can make deals for himself only so he turns into the richest man in the world. I really do believe that the bar is so low for these jobs that when these guys come in and turn it around, the amount of attention will do what they truly need to stay going - stoking the ego. That is fine by me.

Now if I had that much money, I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful. Money usually comes along with that but not in this case (IMO) - he'll drop salary by 99%. Again - my opinion but I don't believe they're doing this to become the richest man possible - it's the success they crave.

So your views are based around your psychological analysis of these people? Do you have a degree in that or what?

Surely you realize that success is measured differently for the ultra-rich? Surely you realize that success often is measured in the ability to not only benefit yourself, but also your elite friends? Surely you realize that "success" to these people is purely profit driven, regardless of whether that money is going directly into their pockets or not? Surely you realize that "success" is also measure in who owes you, and how you can use those debts of gratitude later on?

I mean, I honestly don't believe that your views on this subject could be so, completely shallow and lacking of any human insight or historical context. You were alive during the great recession right?

 

[Angelus Errare]

I disagree as we're not a communist country. The government does have a role for the people but ultimately if it's not run financially right, it will cease to exist and pull down this country as well. You need financially sharp folks to get this country in the right direction and leading the charge should be qualified gov employees.

Doing wonders for Kansas.

 

[Ourobolus]

no question the gov has fat to trim. I never said all government workers are bad - don't twist my words. There are a lot of great people working in the government but there is SO much fat to trim, I'm not sure that's even an opinion. Again though - if you're going to say you can't comment on the gov waste b/c it offends those that are great, I don't agree.

The government can be run more efficiently, I will agree (speaking from someone with 10 years PubSec experience).

But the end result is that the government does not make a profit. Their primary function is to provide for its citizens in the capacity that it can. That does not equal communism, which is not what the argument is here.

 

[KHarvey16]

This is why childish analogies comparing family budgets and government spending are dangerous. People believe them.

 

[Htown]

I disagree as we're not a communist country. The government does have a role for the people but ultimately if it's not run financially right, it will cease to exist and pull down this country as well. You need financially sharp folks to get this country in the right direction and leading the charge should be qualified gov employees.

It doesn't have a thing to do with communism.

 

[Delt31]

If the position is not about money, but the "success", would you agree that past Secretary of States pursued lives of service with a desire for "success" over money? If you are focused on the fact that the CEO of EXXON is rich and successful, would you agree that John Kerry, who is richer than the CEO of EXXON, is equally as successful? If you take issue with how Kerry got his wealth, you should also take issue with Betsy DeVos became wealthy.

No issue with how Kerry got his wealth. I don't think he has the drive you need to get things done right. He's a complete pushover however I do think he wanted it to be successful and applaud him for that. Now take someone like Hillary - complete opposite. I think she only took the role to boost herself to the next position. There was nothing genuine in my opinion about her but that's a pervasive comment throughout.

 

[Delt31]

The government can be run more efficiently, I will agree (speaking from someone with 10 years PubSec experience).

But the end result is that the government does not make a profit. Their primary function is to provide for its citizens in the capacity that it can. That does not equal communism, which is not what the argument is here.

I agree with you but that communism comment was not in relation to that. I was mentioned that b/c often times people think the gov should be much more helpful and I'm just saying we need a fine balance as we're a capitalistic state. Gov doesn't make a profit you're correct - it's called a surplus and we need to start doing that again. I believe this cabinet will help get us there. I could be wrong - just my opinion which is not better than anyone else.

....although I like the guys comments with an avatar that says F**K trump. I'm sure those are going to be measured and calculated. I wonder if someone would be banned with a F*** clinton avatar.

 

[numble]

No issue with how Kerry got his wealth. I don't think he has the drive you need to get things done right. He's a complete pushover however I do think he wanted it to be successful and applaud him for that. Now take someone like Hillary - complete opposite. I think she only took the role to boost herself to the next position. There was nothing genuine in my opinion about her but that's a pervasive comment throughout.

Based on your logic, he would not be satisfied with just this position, which means he is taking the role to boost himself to the next position.

I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful.

 

[The Lamp]

I'm numb to the blows at this point.

If destroying this country from the inside out is what it takes to punish this country for its insolence, then I guess I have to wait it out and hope we never do something like this again. At least for another 60-100 years, just in time for future generations to forget what we did like we forgot how Hitler was elected.

 

[Ourobolus]

I agree with you but that communism comment was not in relation to that. I was mentioned that b/c often times people think the gov should be much more helpful and I'm just saying we need a fine balance as we're a capitalistic state. Gov doesn't make a profit you're correct - it's called a surplus and we need to start doing that again. I believe this cabinet will help get us there. I could be wrong - just my opinion which is not better than anyone else.

What, if any, information about this cabinet has led you to believe that they understand the first thing about running any of these agencies

 

[Blader]

just mentioning that I'm not someone with no experience in what I'm saying. That's all.

I think there are very many people who also work in "the private sector," dude. This is not some uniquely qualifying characteristic.

I truly don't believe that the CEO of EXXON is taking this role so he can make deals for himself only so he turns into the richest man in the world. I really do believe that the bar is so low for these jobs that when these guys come in and turn it around, the amount of attention will do what they truly need to stay going - stoking the ego. That is fine by me.

Now if I had that much money, I would be playing it low but these guys need the constant satisfaction of being successful. Money usually comes along with that but not in this case (IMO) - he'll drop salary by 99%. Again - my opinion but I don't believe they're doing this to become the richest man possible - it's the success they crave.

Wealthy people like Tillerson (and Trump for that matter) really do not depend on salaries. When a Trump administration, with Tillerson as SoS, ease sanctions on Russia, Exxon will be able to excavate millions of dollars in oil from Russian lands they were already invested in (but had to freeze following that sanctions). All that new crude makes Exxon richer and its share price goes up. The better Exxon's stocks perform, the richer Tillerson will be when he leaves Washington and cashes in his chips.

 

[Delt31]

I think there are very many people who also work in "the private sector," dude. This is not some uniquely qualifying characteristic.

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like ExxonMobil, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

 

[KHarvey16]

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like Exxon mobile, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

Treating government like a business is wrong.

 

[Ourobolus]

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like Exxon mobile, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

Again, those two things are not comparable. Exxon's success comes from its profit, regardless of the well-being of the consumer. The government can have a surplus, but if it is not taking care of its citizens, then they have failed.

 

[Psychoward]

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like ExxonMobil, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

Secretary of State isn't equivalent to running a business. Especially when that business profits off of climate change denial. You're clueless.

 

[Nafai1123]

I agree with you but that communism comment was not in relation to that. I was mentioned that b/c often times people think the gov should be much more helpful and I'm just saying we need a fine balance as we're a capitalistic state. Gov doesn't make a profit you're correct - it's called a surplus and we need to start doing that again. I believe this cabinet will help get us there. I could be wrong - just my opinion which is not better than anyone else.

....although I like the guys comments with an avatar that says F**K trump. I'm sure those are going to be measured and calculated. I wonder if someone would be banned with a F*** clinton avatar.

How about actually responding to my post instead of using my avatar to dismiss it? Believe it or not I'm perfectly capable of judging Trumps cabinet picks while still despising him for his racist, xenophobic rhetoric.

 

[Psychoward]

I agree with you but that communism comment was not in relation to that. I was mentioned that b/c often times people think the gov should be much more helpful and I'm just saying we need a fine balance as we're a capitalistic state. Gov doesn't make a profit you're correct - it's called a surplus and we need to start doing that again. I believe this cabinet will help get us there. I could be wrong - just my opinion which is not better than anyone else.

....although I like the guys comments with an avatar that says F**K trump. I'm sure those are going to be measured and calculated. I wonder if someone would be banned with a F*** clinton avatar.

Maybe, maybe not. Clinton isn't a climate change denying, semi-fascist, ignorant, neo-nazi though.

 

[LucidMomentum]

Again, those two things are not comparable. Exxon's success comes from its profit, regardless of the well-being of the consumer. The government can have a surplus, but if it is not taking care of its citizens, then they have failed.

Not to mention the Department of Energy should place some focus on how to get us cleaner and more efficient energy, not just profits.

The types of statements many Republicans and delt bring up that "If they can run a business they can run government" seem to stem from the idea that money = success and that's all there is to it.

Government isn't really in it for the profit so much as for the betterment of a nation and it's citizens.

Well, it should be. But it often isn't because people seem to just want profit.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like ExxonMobil, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

Rex Tillerson’s Company, Exxon, Has Billions at Stake Over Sanctions on Russia

 

[Ourobolus]

Not to mention the Department of Energy should place some focus on how to get us cleaner and more efficient energy, not just profits.

The types of statements many Republicans and delt bring up that "If they can run a business they can run government" seem to stem from the idea that money = success and that's all there is to it.

Government isn't really in it for the profit so much as for the betterment of a nation and it's citizens.

Well, it should be. But it often isn't because people seem to just want profit.

Guys we raised taxation to 75% on everything and provided no services! Success!

 

[Pai Pai Master]

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like ExxonMobil, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

If they succeed it will be by throwing someone under the bus. Just like they run their businesses. You always gain the most by making someone else lose and that is exactly what Trump and his kind are known for.

 

[Blader]

No issue with how Kerry got his wealth. I don't think he has the drive you need to get things done right. He's a complete pushover however I do think he wanted it to be successful and applaud him for that. Now take someone like Hillary - complete opposite. I think she only took the role to boost herself to the next position. There was nothing genuine in my opinion about her but that's a pervasive comment throughout.

You've got to be fucking joking. Kerry has been one of the most successful Secretaries of State in *decades*. The Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, opening relations with Cuba -- these are all profoundly huge and complicated deals that (for the time being) changed history to America's benefit. The amount of hours he spends working round the clock, and the number of countries he is flying to at any given day... goddamn, man, if there's any government employee right now other than Barack Obama who demonstrates a drive to work hard and get things done, it's John fucking Kerry.

omg - it's not meant to say I'm above anyone. It was just giving some additional context.

As for what makes me think they know how to run these agencies? If the guy can run a giant like ExxonMobil, and make it successful, I'm fine with giving him a chance to run this no question about it.

I didn't take it that way, and I don't think literally anyone would. :lol

And for the nth time, running profit-driven companies is completely different from running government agencies that are, conceptually, not driven by profit. The goal of ExxonMobil is to make money, and to make more money for its shareholders every quarter over the previous one. That is not what the State Department does.

 

[Psychoward]

You've got to be fucking joking. Kerry has been one of the most successful Secretaries of State in *decades*. The Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, opening relations with Cuba -- these are all profoundly huge and complicated deals that (for the time being) changed history to America's benefit. The amount of hours he spends working round the clock, and the number of countries he is flying to at any given day... goddamn, man, if there's any government employee right now other than Barack Obama who demonstrates a drive to work hard and get things done, it's John fucking Kerry.

You're talking to someone who probably believes the nuclear deal handed nukes to Iran and the Paris climate accord is a waste of effort because climate change isn't real or can't be mitigated.

 

[tuxfool]

You're talking to someone who probably believes the nuclear deal handed nukes to Iran and the Paris climate accord is a waste of effort because climate change isn't real or can't be mitigated.

The road to success, extinction.

As long as we have money, eh?

 

[Blader]

You're talking to someone who probably believes the nuclear deal handed nukes to Iran and the Paris climate accord is a waste of effort because climate change isn't real or can't be mitigated.

that occurred to me, but felt like it deserved saying anyway, heh.

 

[Metalingus5150]

Government is not a business. Nor should it be run like one.

The purpose of a business is to maximize profit. The purpose of a government is to maximize the well-being of its citizens.

Being good at one thing is not the same as being good at the other.

I wish more people thought like you.

 

[GuyKazama]

Government is not a business. Nor should it be run like one.

The purpose of a business is to maximize profit. The purpose of a government is to maximize the well-being of its citizens.

Being good at one thing is not the same as being good at the other.

It does not mean that it can't be run more efficiently. You can't maximize the well being of citizens by wasting billions on red tape. You can't maximize the effectiveness of federal agencies if you can't remove poorly performing employees. The government could use some business common sense, where the bottom line actually matters.

 

[Psychoward]

It does not mean that it can't be run more efficiently. You can't maximize the well being of citizens by wasting billions on red tape. You can't maximize the effectiveness of federal agencies if you can't remove poorly performing employees. The government could use some business common sense, where the bottom line actually matters.

That's fair but it doesn't make sense in the context of this pick or the Tillerson pick.

 

[kess]

It's like we lost a war or something. Is this the occupation?

 

[Blader]

It does not mean that it can't be run more efficiently. You can't maximize the well being of citizens by wasting billions on red tape. You can't maximize the effectiveness of federal agencies if you can't remove poorly performing employees. The government could use some business common sense, where the bottom line actually matters.

Rick Perry has no business common sense, and I'm not sure anyone thinks State's biggest problem is that it wastes billions of dollars on red tape or poorly performing employees.

The two departments that are the most in need of what you're talking about here are DoD and DHS, neither of which will ever be subject to those kinds of cuts by a Republican White House or Congress.

 

[KHarvey16]

It does not mean that it can't be run more efficiently. You can't maximize the well being of citizens by wasting billions on red tape. You can't maximize the effectiveness of federal agencies if you can't remove poorly performing employees. The government could use some business common sense, where the bottom line actually matters.

That's not a business idea. In fact a business minded person defines waste by that which does not make money. That is not at all the criteria to use in government. Waste is bad in all facets of life and the idea that the whole government is full of people too stupid to realize that is absurd. Trying to simplify the whole thing and claim anyone with common business sense can just swoop in and turn it all around is completely ridiculous.

 

[elyetis]

B/c money is no incentive for these guys means they are doing it to be successful which is what makes them work hard.

That strange idea that someone rich isn't going to try to get even more wealth.

 

[tuxfool]

That strange idea that someone rich isn't going to try to get even more wealth.

Quite. Why is it that rich republicans rail against tax raises?

 

[Omegasquash]

They voted for change, and boy are they going to get it good and hard.

It's going to take years to undo the damage that's going to be done. If we can at all.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

So he'll eliminate himself so we never have to hear from him again? This may be a fair trade...

 

[Draft]

Trump seems to have no core values or beliefs, but he is strikingly consistent in appointing cabinet secretaries that are openly hostile to the Federal government's role in their respective cabinets.

An energy secretary who definitely doesn't belief the Fed has any role in regulating energy policy. Probably doesn't even think the US needs a nationwide energy policy, despite being the most powerful and influential nation in human history and the most important leader in the worldwide effort to develop post fossil fuel energy sources.

An education secretary that has spent millions of dollars undermining the concept of public, tax funded education.

An EPA director that is currently, as in as I type this, suing the EPA. Who most likely doesn't believe the environment needs to be protected.

A HUD director who believes the concept of public housing is harmful to society, and who has no meaningful experience managing housing or urban development.

The secretary of labor runs a fast food empire. Shitty food service jobs are the perfect representation of the bad jobs that make up the modern American economy. The secretary of the treasury comes from the business that blew up the American treasury 8 10 years ago. The secretary of small business runs a company that has been destroying smaller competitors for 30 years through aggressive under pricing and talent poaching.

Absolutely terrifying for the future of America, but remarkably consistent for a President Elect that can be on both sides of an issue in the same paragraph.