Run the government like a company comparison

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

professionall Rank: #9

next random

Comment

Run the government like a company comparison. . Something to think about..... Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees an

Something to think about.....
Can you imagine working for a company
that has a little more than 500 employees
and has the following statistics:
29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad
checks
117 have directly or indirectly
bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad
credit
14 have been arrested on
charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year
1 one ran a stop sign and killed a man
on a motorcycle
Can you guess which organization this
Give up yet? It' s the 535 members of the
United States Congress. The same group
of idiots elected by us that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.

...

+1748

Views: 32951 Submitted: 12/02/2017

Block User's Content

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (104)

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 104 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#2 - geese#313 on commentsRank#313

Reply+483

(12/02/2017)[-]

I figured it was the NFL at first, but then realized there weren't enough violent crimes.

#41 to #2 - rassamdul

Reply+68

(12/02/2017)[-]

Yeah and it cant be NBA, since no rapes were mentioned

#65 to #41 - thegreatergoo

Reply+9

(12/03/2017)[-]

**thegreatergoo used "*roll picture*"**
**thegreatergoo rolled image**No reported rapes, anyway.

#40 to #2 - jokersaysamuseme

has deleted their comment [-]

#4 - Deavas#332 on commentsRank#332

Reply+218

(12/02/2017)[-]

On the one hand, congress is supposed to be made up of regular people who may have done things wrong, don't have to be perfect beings
On the other hand, there's a lot of accusations and arrests in that list i wouldn't exactly attribute to someone considered a model citizen

#82 to #4 - nulltype

Reply+5

(12/03/2017)[-]

I feel like people in charge on how the country spends its money shouldn't be making the kind of decisions that lead to bad credit, when they don't have money problems.

Like, damn, this is a bit beyond average citizen levels of **********.

#6 - mikepetru#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+127

(12/02/2017)[-]

"So what you're telling me is that we should put these people in charge of regulating healthcare, education, businesses etc.?
What are those dumb libertarians so scared of? There's nothing dangerous about putting a bunch of criminals in charge of micromanaging our lives and limiting our rights! You just want an excuse to be racist and serve your customers poison!"

#64 to #6 - goodername

Reply+7

(12/03/2017)[-]

NO! What we need to do is get rid of those evil antitrust laws because those are just a socialist construct meant to limit our rights as citizens! Big businesses would never abuse their power and definitely have our best interests in mind more than our evil government!
What are those dumb socialists so scared of? Having to pay $1000 a month for an internet connection because there is now just a singular mega internet provider? Or having to go into debt for the rest of your life because you need a lifesaving drug that a monopoly holds control of? pfff, paranoid socialists just want everything for free. /endstrawman

#72 to #64 - mikepetru#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+5

(12/03/2017)[-]

When you're afraid of big businessmen forming monopolies and exploiting the poor so you give a monopoly to a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats who big businessmen can buy and exploit the poor through regulations only the big corporations can afford, subsidies with their tax dollars, etc.

Remember socialism is good in theory, we just haven't had the RIGHT dictators at the helm.

#98 to #72 - anon id: aebfe4b4

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

At least bureaucrats can be removed from power every few years. And corruption is considered bad. Go, remove Rothschilds and similar, corrupting these bureaucrats, and it's ok because its legal.

#83 to #72 - nulltype

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

I mean, this whole post is about how the people that are currently in charge clearly aren't the right people. Business is inherently monopolistic, as anyone that CAN get a monopoly SHOULD, in purely economic terms. To not do so is throwing away profit.

Government CAN become tyrannical, but shouldn't, and there are methods of solving that problem. One proposed solution was built into the US constitution and bill of rights.

Business CAN become tyrannical, and will given the opportunity. There are methods of solving that problem, too. It's called government.

#88 to #83 - mikepetru#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

Business CAN become tyrannical, and will given the opportunity...by government means. Government is the cause of monopolies, not the solution. If a business starts doing ****** work, no matter how big, the people can take their money and go support someone else. When a company gets subsidies and heavy regulations that only they can afford to acquiesce to to stifle smaller competition, they require a middle-man, government, to do so. They can't just grab you in the street and steal your wallet, so they use the government as their enforcer. When you consolidate a large amount of power in the hands of the lawmakers, the moochers and the tyrants will be drawn to it like moths to a flame. Government gathered all powers and loot in one place, now all they must do is reach out and take it.

This is what pisses me off. So many people say the politicians are in the corporations' pockets, and their solution....is to give government...which is owned by corporations...more power...

#99 to #88 - anon id: aebfe4b4

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

Without gov you just remove the middle man. Gov unless corrupted would never work for them or care.

#89 to #88 - nulltype

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

The wrong laws are in place, this is true.

But without regulation, business does not just rise to the occasion and act honorably. Look at Hong Kong. Look anywhere with practically zero government oversight on businesses (especially tiny ones on the street).

Businesses NEED regulation, or they will gladly bleed people dry. Monopolies exist without government assistance. The laws on the books currently support the companies, yes, so the LAWS need to be changed. The presence of government isn't the problem, it's what has been done within that frame.

The solution is smarter laws, not more of them. Smarter government, not more of it.

This is what pisses me off. So many people say the government is in the corporations' pockets, and their solution....is to give business...which owns the government...more power...

#90 to #89 - mikepetru#99 on commentsRank#99

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

Please define "bleed people dry." I hear this hyperbolic language made to sound scary and evil all the time without it being put into a context. Do you mean raise prices to an exorbitant level? A competitor will come along and offer it for cheaper. Competition regulates business, without any laws, and without any force. And the best way to maximize competition is to minimize the bureaucratic hurdles so smaller businesses can more easy rise to the challenge.
I don't know about Hong Kong's law system, but from a principled standpoint, as long as a government is protecting the rights of its citizens and businesses are not exercising force to compete or compel patrons to buy from them, there's no problem. I'm not accusing you of this, but when people refer to foreign powers with a "free market", it tends to be a government that does not protect the individual and his/her rights. Therefore, it cannot be a 'free market' if a bullet is legal tender.

There's no government power to buy if the government has no power to buy. We don't need more/different laws, we need politicians to be devoted to the principles of individual liberty, and the only way to do that is for the people to put pressure on them by constantly driving home the principle: "Government exist to protect the rights of every individual citizen. You only use force to defend us from force. And if you stray from this, we will strip you of your power." Look at Trump, all the bureaucrats and the corporations wanted him to lose, and because his supporters united in principle to oppose globalism, they flipped the table on all those *******. The people need to be the check on government, so that the government is always looking over its shoulder when it even thinks of making a deal to grant unfair privileges to any corporations. Too many Americans have been taught to reject or simply ignore the importance and virtue of individual liberty, which creates the perfect climate for politicians to amass power in confidence and feel safe selling it to the highest bidder. Ideological subversion and demoralization are the means by which tyrants come in and stay in power. The people's love of freedom needs to be re-invigorated if these natural checks are ever to stay in balance.

#91 to #90 - nulltype

Reply+2

(12/03/2017)[-]

Google "Company Towns."

Any kind of consumer protection is inherently business regulation, and is kind of my point. The only way to regulate is to limit something's power, so removing regulations on business would be giving them more power. That was the intent of my word-switch with your posting.

I can't say I care much for trump, but I hated Hillary and the other mainline-ish competitors were laughable, so it's probably the best we could have hoped for with the election. That's kind of sad, honestly.

I don't agree that loosing the reigns on business will get us there, but I agree with you on where the government needs to get regarding individuals.

#14 - therockofshame

Reply+96

(12/02/2017)[-]

#69 to #14 - anon id: f2395def

Reply+4

(12/03/2017)[-]

I don't know the source for the above, but I did find this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_America...

It, for whatever reason, breaks it the periods down by president. Certainly there are far fewer crimes happening during say, Obama's run but I guess the other thing to note is that Congressman tend to run for many, many years.

#70 to #69 - anon id: f2395def

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

And I should also point out that it only counts actual charges. So accusations of any kind aren't recorded.

#7 - samael

Reply+51

(12/02/2017)[-]

Well then why do you put them in congress? The same goes for that **** Merkel in Germany. Why the **** do we keep putting these people in positions of power? Are we all collectively masochistic?

#10 to #7 - anon id: 154b92b9

Reply+38

(12/02/2017)[-]

People attracted to politics tend to be terrible people, that's not hyperbole, just think about the mental state of someone that thinks they should be able to tell an entire country of people how to behave? You have to be messed up to want that responsibility, and the truth is very few people do what the responsibility, they want the power. Then you have good people that are corrupted by it, it's stressful and if you're a successful politician you're probably wealthy, so you're stressed out and you've got lots of money, drugs suddenly become very tempting. Sex is also a good way to relieve stress, and as it's frequently said, sex is about power, so you've got people in positions of power that are naturally power hungry, sexual misconduct is unsurprising under such circumstances. My dad knew a guy that was elected to some lower level political position here in Canada, federal government I think but not parliament, I don't remember the specifics. This guy went into politics wanting to make things better, help people and improve his country, but he realized that to get your own thing done you have to help other people with theirs, before long you start supporting things you don't agree with just to service your own ends, he felt himself becoming corrupted and losing sight of his originally idealistic goals. So once his term was up he left politics forever, he didn't like what it was turning him into. Seeing as most high level politicians have been in politics for a long time there's a good chance they've had similar experiences. To summarize, politics generally attracts the worst and those few good people that find their way to it eventually have the worst brought out in them. We just don't have that many good options.

#43 to #10 - bloodymelon#4 on contentRank#4

Reply+6

(12/02/2017)[-]

**bloodymelon used "*roll picture*"**
**bloodymelon rolled image**

join list: CoolInfoDump

Mention History

#94 to #43 - anon id: 018810b3

Reply+3

(12/03/2017)[-]

**anonymous rolled user Abortedwafflez**

#37 to #10 - anon id: 267c1a4c

Reply+5

(12/02/2017)[-]

Precisely, one of the requirements of being a long running successful politician is being a sociopath. The job destroys good people

#74 to #10 - brisineo#158 on commentsRank#158

Reply+4

(12/03/2017)[-]

That's why the best politicians happen to be the ones who don't want to be politicians in the first place. But they have to because they were forced into it by circumstance, or felt compelled to so they could protect their fellow men from men who is or is willing to abuse such power.

#85 to #10 - nulltype

Reply+3

(12/03/2017)[-]

If Cincinnatus is anything to go by, politics might be a position people shouldn't serve by choice. Those that have a talent for it but not a desire for it might have to be conscripted from the general population in order for us to have any real success with it...

But, of course, that has its own problems. Bring on the robot overlords.

#71 to #10 - anon id: 8407da00

Reply-4

(12/03/2017)[-]

Who the **** are you to call everyone a horrible person for being interested in politics? Get ****** cunt.

#103 to #71 - anon id: dcf16a43

Reply+2

(12/03/2017)[-]

Found the sociopathic politician

#9 to #7 - bouchedag

Reply+14

(12/02/2017)[-]

Whats the point of having a 2nd amendment if we aren't using it?

#36 to #9 - zhuftiuv

Reply+7

(12/02/2017)[-]

Circlejerking over it and **** talking civilized nations without gun fetish, obviously.

#8 to #7 - heroforfun

Reply+8

(12/02/2017)[-]

Or we just dont place them in position of power. They are all just a bunch of cockz and even if they are not president or some high **** they still make a ******* of money. Corruption everywhere!

#11 to #7 - scowler

Reply+7

(12/02/2017)[-]

Because the parties decide who's eligible to run for office. We have to do away with the two-party system. Actually, I think it's collapsing on its own...

#21 - aliksander

Reply+26

(12/02/2017)[-]

1) all the 'accused' in the list can be discounted for now because anyone can accuse you of anything, and the latest becomes more likely the more powerful you are.

2) Most of the rest of the list don't give a time frame for the crimes. If someine accidentally killed someone driving a motorcycle as a 17 year old, I don't see how automatically means they would make a poor congressman 40 years later when they are 57 years old.

3) If people are voting for representatives to 'keep us in line', then they of course would vote for the crappiest people since you are voting for a crappy reason.

#1 - evilkingganon#44 on commentsRank#44

Reply+6

(12/02/2017)[-]

**evilkingganon used "*roll picture*"**
**evilkingganon rolled image** nobodys perfect

#16 to #1 - notahanzomain#22 on commentsRank#22

Reply+18

(12/02/2017)[-]

MODS BAN THIS MAN HE IS DESTROYING MY INNOCENCE AND I DO NOT FEEL SAFE

#17 to #16 - evilkingganon#44 on commentsRank#44

Reply+6

(12/02/2017)[-]

Cant get banned for a roll

#48 to #17 - assassindash

Reply+2

(12/02/2017)[-]

**assassindash used "*roll picture*"**
**assassindash rolled image**

Depends on what you roll and the context you're rolling for.

Admin and mods can humor the idea.

#18 to #17 - notahanzomain#22 on commentsRank#22

Reply+2

(12/02/2017)[-]

BUT YOU CAN FOR DEGENERACY REEEE

#5 - heartlessrobot#128 on commentsRank#128

Reply+11

(12/02/2017)[-]

Sounds like where I work, yeah.

#27 to #5 - baronvonhuckle#160 on commentsRank#160

Reply+3

(12/02/2017)[-]

I work for Christians, but i think i make up for all the sin that they don't do.

#32 to #27 - heartlessrobot#128 on commentsRank#128

Reply+7

(12/02/2017)[-]

I work with road crews.
You'd be surprised the kind of people flagging traffic.
Ex-army rangers, marines, ex-drug dealers, even worked with a guy who did 40 years after killing 3 people behind a walgreens. Drug deal gone bad, they jumped him, but he was expecting them so he brought a baseball bat.

#19 to #5 - tropenthatshtup#217 on commentsRank#217

Reply+3

(12/02/2017)[-]

Same

#49 - Tyranitar#318 on commentsRank#318

Reply+8

(12/02/2017)[-]

I've always found it weird how our "checks and balances" system is supposed to keep each office in line... and yet it seems like Congress gets the final say in everything. Don't they actually get the vote to raise their own pay, too?

#51 to #49 - jdone

Reply+2

(12/02/2017)[-]

They do

#53 to #51 - rsfishy

Reply+3

(12/02/2017)[-]

It took a constitutional amendment passed in the 70's I believe that had been languishing in Congress since almost the founding of the country to keep congressmen from raising their own pay while in office.

#55 to #53 - jdone

Reply+2

(12/02/2017)[-]

You are right, however there are multiple loopholes here. Congressman are banned from raising their own pay via legislation, however, they can vote to up their commission as well as raise their cost of living pay. For source, look up article 1 section 6

#59 to #49 - heartlessrobot#128 on commentsRank#128

Reply0

(12/02/2017)[-]

No, it's the Judicial branch that has final say.

#23 - helloimtoiletbrush

Reply+5

(12/02/2017)[-]

Putting humans in charge of humans, who would have thought...

This is why I have a hard time with respecting authority. We're expecting equally flawed and vulnerable people to a standard, where they're responsible for being unbiased, logical, and selfless beings who should be impervious to the human condition. NOT saying that it's not possible to be justified and responsible, that there isn't actually qualified people doing their job (when there is, and more often than not they are being overtaken by someone of some kind of personel discretion) not everyone in positions of power are always terrible, but I just have difficulty with the risk entailed that they're flawed and imperfect humans, and expected to not be and being an influence in the lives of everyone else.

I don't want anarchy, I understand what a utopia entails, I'm just saying I'm going to respect people in positions of authority based on character and ability to do their job, just as everyone else. If they're doing a **** job then they're ****, if they're upstanding citizens and good natured people, I am grateful. But I will not just abide by your **** just because you have a shiny badge and a gun. You can't polish a turd.

#25 to #23 - itblobboy

Reply+8

(12/02/2017)[-]

"Equally flawed and vulnerable" is not definitively true. This is the majesty of humans being different from one another.

#28 to #25 - helloimtoiletbrush

Reply+2

(12/02/2017)[-]

A bullet to the head is a bullet to the head, my guy. That'd kill anybody. I'm inferring to that fact that yeah everyone is different but also mortal, imperfect, designed to fail, human. If there were someone whose lived a 150 years I'd rather listen to that guy than a 17 year old who "knows everything". But I'm sure they both know damn well how to pour a bowl of cereal, which doesn't impact either of their ability to run a country, those things don't correlate.

There are some things that are just that simple and you don't need an x amount of life experience and knowledge to do, but there are people who know better earlier than life rather than later, but it is also vice versa. It's still a gamble.

#35 to #28 - anon id: d229cccf

Reply+1

(12/02/2017)[-]

But what if the 17 year old doesn't know everything, but just knows what she knows?

#86 to #23 - nulltype

Reply+1

(12/03/2017)[-]

So you're saying we should design AI that are customized to the role they would fill in office...

Yes. I am in. Let's do this thing.

First 2 3 4 5 Last Next

[ 104 comments ]

Add Comment