Bain Capital vs Obama

[rwh11385]

http://www.amazon.com/Boulevard-Brok...=1ST436E5FAVGA Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed--and What to Do About It - you can't write bills to make people be creative or innovate. Just stay out of their way, because even best intentions are generally off-target or too late. Crowdfunding ought to help I believe: Making capital easier to access and greater feedback from consumers.

Anyone who attacks Bain's inability to save all companies it tried to help really misses the point of the free market were some will lose. (This of course includes Romney's former in-party competitors) There are some companies too poorly off, or just with stupid strategies / unable to keep up, to fix.

On the other hand, politicians do not typically know as much about technology as those deeply entrenched in it and ought not be trying to "pick winners". There's members of Congress who think the internet need bigger tubes while writing laws about it... But we need to keep up with scientific research - as much as some attack science. Even Newt wanted to re-vamp the space program (which has contributed greatly to our country, economy, and well-being: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/). Heck, the internet itself, GPS, etc. are products of US publicly funded research.

But what is funny is those who attack green tech subsidies yet defend oil and Ag ones. Being paid to not farm to protect prices? Public crop insurance when the private market could do that? Also acting as a roadblock to Celanese making ethanol seems inefficient. But then again, that goes back to the money trail of defending your contributors rather than making the best choices for the country's future.

[joshh]

Interesting. Very few people are consistent with that viewpoint. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you despise the Commerce Clause.


What other incentive is there aside from financial that the federal government could offer?

Do you also oppose federal funding for scientific research?

No not entirely. Our Government has the right (and we need them to) control trade. But this government has taken it upon themselves to make things much more complicated than our founders intended. Foreign trade most of all though. Not fuck over land owners and business. They like to throw everything under the commerce clause because it's seen as so broad and easily interpreted.

Business doesn't need more incentive to do business beyond making money and making a good wage. Most farm subsidies go to non poorer farms anyways. It's a broken system.

I am against federally funded scientific research. Because it too is unconstitutional. If you fund scientific research you can fund just about anything else you want. It opens the door.

[mrsleeve]

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

[herbivor]

^ you probably masterbate to Thomas Jefferson quotes don't you? Good quote nonetheless.

[mrsleeve]

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

You should know this by now but Jefferson is one of my personal heroes and fav founder

[Dozyproductions]

His quotes which are ideologically true in nature are not pragmatic in reality.

[mrsleeve]

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

[joshh]

His quotes which are ideologically true in nature are not pragmatic in reality.

Only if you choose them not to be.

[rwh11385]

which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement,

[Not that I disagree with the quote at all, rather the opposite] But doesn't that pretty much say that its not the government's job to ensure everyone "succeeds"? It's in no way the government's role to determine what each shall do, or how much they focus on it and improve themselves. They can provide a good equal-opportunity environment with the freedom to succeed but you know the other saying "can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink"...

Similarly enough, if we provide all what someone may want it means the government will also leverage from those who have worked hard to succeed... and shared misery is the result.

We can recommend what people should do, or try to estimate what may be in demand (BLS), but cannot make anyone choose to make wise decisions or invest in themselves. But we must remember that we cannot reward people for failing, and must let them learn and help themselves, regardless of how many media complaint stories exist or if they flood parks with tents, drugs, and Apple products.

[Anyway, I think everyone knows you love Jefferson - which is reasonable because he has some great quotes that provide foundational ideals - and it wasn't like Herbivor said he didn't like the quote either. Oh well, this post responding about that portion of the quote is also off track from the thread too]