Absurd.
Isn’t much (or most) of government about money (tax revenue/expenditures)?
Don’t competence and efficiency apply regardless of profit motive?
CEOs are free to act as though the world comes to an end after the next fiscal quarter. They are not free to invest in things that will never make a return on investment. Niche markets can be ignored if they have no profit potential. Corporate thought processes must be unlearned in order to run a government. Governments must serve all the people, not just those that can be served efficiently.
Now don’t go and make me spit out my drink by telling me that Presidents know how to invest in the future.
Most of what Presidents do is geared towards winning the next election, and what investments they make usually benefit their political needs in the short term and rarely pan out in the long term. Plus they call anything they spend money on an investment just because investment sounds better than spending. But most federal dollars are just pure consumption spending, equivalent to businesses claiming they are “investing” when they buy first class tickets for their high ranking employees.
We have historical data, you know. Which US Presidents had been successful businessmen in the private sector, and did they actually do any better than the career pols?
Social Security? The Louisiana Purchase, Polk’s war, the Gadsden Purchase, the purchase of Alaska? Creating national parks? Which of those was “short-term consumption”?
Now, maybe some Presidents (cough Clinton cough) do think short-term. But most Presidents don’t run for a third term. They try to leave a legacy and retire. Or they go quietly senile/mad while their cabinet commit crimes and stuff, I don’t know.
Buying land is an investment. Spending on your elderly is the opposite of investment actually. That’s consumption spending. And we actually cut back on real investment to pay for it.
Social Security is spending? Since when? Did you not notice the deduction from your paycheck? The government borrowed from the Social Security trust fund; paying back a debt is not “spending”.
By that definition, nothing is spending. And SS will only continue to be as you describe until it isn’t. It’s possible SS might actually only pay out 80% of benefits starting in the early 2030s, but I have a feeling they’ll probably start using general revenue instead. it is the easy way to kick the can down the road and that’s what government does best.
The general revenue fund already owes the Social Security Administration money. Money it can’t repay without borrowing more or raising non-FICA taxes. Or are you one of those who think it’s A-OK to default on the debt to SSA?
Anyway, back to my point:
Herbert Hoover, the Bushes (sorta), and Jimmy Carter (arguably) were successful private-sector businessmen. Were they better presidents than Harry Truman and Chester Arthur, who were machine politicians much of their respective lives?
Really?
No, thus why I said 2030s, when the SSA’s bonds run out.
By what definition? Going to war in Iraq is spending, even if is paid for with borrowed money. But paying back that debt is not spending. Do you not have any credit cards? You can spend money you don’t have, but paying off the credit card is not spending.
So don’t mischaracterize my definition to get yourself out of a hole.
That’s called paying debt. It’s not an investment, unless the debt bought something that will appreciate more than the cost of the debt.
What percentage of federal spending should be investments?
100% of that spending which politicians call investments.
So if a politician calls Social Security spending an investment, you have no problem with that?
I do. It’s not an investment. Very little of federal spending could be called investing. which is why the old term, “spending” was always more truthful. “Investments” was just chosen because it sounds better. Even if politicians wanted to actually invest, few have the skill to recognize a good investment from a bad one.
Then what the hell does this mean?
It simply means that politicians like to call all sorts of spending investments that aren’t. But spending polls poorly, even though it’s more truthful.
Ok, one more time: In your opinion, what percentage of federal spending should be bona fide investments?
All Republican candidates besides Trump are substantially weaker than Mitt Romney. This means a Trump ticket will be the only one that has even a small sliver of a chance. Most likely, Trump will pick a military figure for his vp. He cannot pick a traditional politician.
The Democrats will either nominate a substantially hobbled Clinton or one of the sillier candidates they have going on over there.
This will be the most entertaining presidential election in over 100 years.