As in every government organization run like a business except for the military (because that would mean they would need to conquer countries for money)
2007-03-10 11:45:10 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
11th respondant, your kidding right? He did not run it like a business, and neither has any president so far. Ross Perot had a great plan, but since he was an independant, he lost
2007-03-10 12:01:07 · update #1
Not realistic because the socialists flock to the government.
1 out of 6 work for the government excluding military.
About 15% of Americans are flat out socialist, anarchist, communist, or far left.
Coincidence.
What needs to happen is government get out of the various businesses that they have no Constitutional mandate to be involved in.
Health care
Education
Welfare
2007-03-10 11:50:42 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The government should use some elements from the business world--fiscal responsibility, sound management, accountability for outcomes, etc.
But not others. Business has a built in "growth drive" that is generally not a good thing to have in a government bureaucracy. And much of the job government does is the sort of task business does not do well--which its left to the government in the first place.
Ironically, in terms of competance and businesslike management, it's the military that most closely resembles business.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by "like a business." Most of the US government these days IS run like a business--Enron.
2007-03-10 12:01:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, absolutely not.
The problem is that a business has the sole purpose of making money, whereas a government has the sole purpose of making a nation effective for its people.
Like it or not, and this has nothing at all to do with "socialism," the implicit purpose of government is to tax the people according to what the people consider to be just, and spend that money on behalf of the people.
That's nothing like a business and anyone who tries to make it such has not only got it all wrong but fooled us into believing him/her.
2007-03-10 15:58:58 · answer #3 · answered by Chris N 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
someone that has owned and run a large organization effectively his finished existence, could be in good structure to run the u . s . authorities. because, they are going to understand first hand what taxes do to agencies. Plus, it truly is way less likely that they have some type of political time table, vs. those which have spent there finished lives as politicians. the in reality reason an fairly prosperous businessman could pursue the presidency, is that he particularly feels he can help united statesa.. even as with others, you in no way understand, if its only ability they are after.
2016-12-01 19:36:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that was Bill Clintons way, and he was quite successful, he left the government and the economy in fine shape, it didn't take Bush long to turn things around and run it into the ground. I pity the next president that has to pick up the pieces and move on.
2007-03-10 11:59:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, since businesses are run to make a profit and government really should only be doing things that people need but aren't available because they aren't profitable, then I don't understand what it means to run it like a business.
2007-03-10 12:04:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not entirely - much of what the government does is going to be a money-losing venture at all times.
A lot of the government should be changed to run like a business - not only do they need to use a little "smarts" in what they do, they also need to properly answer to their shareholders. They also need to the ability to fire someone for being stupid - instead of promoted....
2007-03-10 11:53:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I just finished reading Conspiracy of Fools about the Enron scandal. Those Enron folks make the government look efficient and honest. Business like does not equal good.
2007-03-10 12:05:10 · answer #8 · answered by Greye Wolfe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no.. most simply.. because businesses are headed by 'special people'..
when these 'special people' get chosen to be 'special people' .. they feel.... well, 'special'...
and then they could give 2 sh*ts about you as an 'employee'
because as an 'employee' you are supposed to work to make the company look good and produce good.. nothing else... so thats all 'special people' look at and care about...
not the 'employee'...
thats probably why communism has never worked.. now that i think about it, the 2 have a LOT of similarities...
2007-03-10 12:05:55 · answer #9 · answered by Corey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting you should say that.
In the past I would have said no.
Now I say yes.
From everything I have seen....there isn't a person that has to "balance a budget" that couldn't see red flag for excessive expenses and cut this budget down on basic common sense alone.
2007-03-10 11:54:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋