Thread: Does Mitt Romney buissness background make uniquely qualified?[W:26]

Hi there

First a little about me: I am guy from Denmark, who is (as a lot of people around the world) interested in American Politics, so I have been following the 2012 campaign since sometime last may when the GOP candidates started announcing. As you might guess since I am from Denmark, my points of view are quite liberal, and if I could cast a vote, I would defiantly vote for Obama. I will however try and keep this post as unbiased as possible,

I have been pondering about this question for quite some time and I would really like to get other people's thoughts on this, also people who are more insightful as to American Politics.

Ok well now onto the matter.

Mitt Romney's main argument so far is that he has had a fairly successful business career, where he has made a lot of great investments which have made a lot of companies grow and thereby hire people. He even goes on to state that this somehow makes him uniquely qualified, far more qualified than the current incumbent. But here is where I do not get it, because how is that so?

He certainly knows a lot about business and all that stuff, and I admit more than Barack Obama, and he would defiantly be better at running a company than Barack Obama. The case however is just that, as far as I can see, running a country and a business is not really the same thing. When you run a country you lay the ground works for job creation, and try and create an environment where businesses thrive and companies grow, which means new jobs. Then one might add, that he might be better at creating these conditions, because he has been in the private sector. But I suspect Barack Obama has tons of people around him, who knows everything about the private sector and how one creates job and what affects company either negatively or positively. Also if Mitt Romney were so good with business, how come he had such a mediocre term as governor of Massachusetts? something he hardly mentions.

So is it not a value based election, where we for instance have Obamacare, where I guess that one can admit that it is not good for businesses. But it does provide healthcare coverage for a lot of people who would not be covered. So to me it is more like do we want to become richer but more unequal, or do we want to become slightly less rich and slightly more equal, so is that not for instance an example of what this election is about?

Well the post got quite long and perhaps a bit unstructured as well, but I hope you will manage to read through, and I look very much forward to hear your thoughts on this!

Countries aren't corporations.

Originally Posted by Deuce

Countries aren't corporations.

That's right, they aren't. Brilliant observation as usual.

Originally Posted by lo2

Hi there

First a little about me: I am guy from Denmark, who is (as a lot of people around the world) interested in American Politics, so I have been following the 2012 campaign since sometime last may when the GOP candidates started announcing. As you might guess since I am from Denmark, my points of view are quite liberal, and if I could cast a vote, I would defiantly vote for Obama. I will however try and keep this post as unbiased as possible,

I have been pondering about this question for quite some time and I would really like to get other people's thoughts on this, also people who are more insightful as to American Politics.

Ok well now onto the matter.

Mitt Romney's main argument so far is that he has had a fairly successful business career, where he has made a lot of great investments which have made a lot of companies grow and thereby hire people. He even goes on to state that this somehow makes him uniquely qualified, far more qualified than the current incumbent. But here is where I do not get it, because how is that so?

He certainly knows a lot about business and all that stuff, and I admit more than Barack Obama, and he would defiantly be better at running a company than Barack Obama. The case however is just that, as far as I can see, running a country and a business is not really the same thing. When you run a country you lay the ground works for job creation, and try and create an environment where businesses thrive and companies grow, which means new jobs. Then one might add, that he might be better at creating these conditions, because he has been in the private sector. But I suspect Barack Obama has tons of people around him, who knows everything about the private sector and how one creates job and what affects company either negatively or positively. Also if Mitt Romney were so good with business, how come he had such a mediocre term as governor of Massachusetts? something he hardly mentions.

So is it not a value based election, where we for instance have Obamacare, where I guess that one can admit that it is not good for businesses. But it does provide healthcare coverage for a lot of people who would not be covered. So to me it is more like do we want to become richer but more unequal, or do we want to become slightly less rich and slightly more equal, so is that not for instance an example of what this election is about?

Well the post got quite long and perhaps a bit unstructured as well, but I hope you will manage to read through, and I look very much forward to hear your thoughts on this!

Well, you've made a lot of bad assumptions. You assumed that the President has a set of competent advisers, he does not. He hired people like Van Jones and Kathleen Sebelius. You assumed that Obamacare provides something for someone...it does not. It raises taxes and requires participation in a market that millions had chosen not to participate, but it does not provide anything to anyone.

But, the topic at hand is what best qualifies a President to be a President. It wasn't that long ago that a military background was absolutely essential. And that makes a lot of sense. The only real power the President has is as the Commander of the armed forces. His other jobs are really ancillary. However, public opinion of the primary purpose of the President has changed, and now he is tasked with managing the economy as his primary purpose. As such, people today look for one of two traits: education in the theories of macro economics and political intervention OR participation in the micro economics of business.

So you have a choice. You can choose the candidate that has classical training in theories behind economic activity and how the government can best control it or you can choose the candidate that has experience in how the economy is affected by the government (and in theory know what best to do or not do).

Further, there is an implication in how a business man would know how to provide services at a cost that is less than the revenue.

Whether any of that is true or not really depends more on the individual and not their background, but it is fallacies like "I have a higher education" and "I'm a great business man" that drive our election.

So, if we want to talk about Romney V. Obama we have to give the advantage to Romney. Romney has been both a business man and a politician with an executive like power. But the reality is very few pay a great deal of attention to that. Most pay attention to (in order) Party, Philosophy, and Personal strife.

The way I see it is that Romney has a much more diverse background. On top of being a successful businessman he ran the Olympic committee and did a great job and was also a governor. This gives him a lot of experience in not just leadership but in how to run things.

The problem with career politicians is that they're out of touch with the real world. Most have never had to deal with running the risk of having a business go under or dealing with budgeting to survive. In fact I think it would do a lot of people good to have to run a business and see what it's like. Your opinion about of a lot of things change when you are the one responsible for everything.

There is no training or experience that can properly prepare you for being the most powerful person in one of the most powerful countries in the entire world. The responsibilities of that office are beyond anything most people can comprehend. You can get a boost with certain experiences. Romney has indeed been the leader of a state and successfully managed large businesses. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to all the foreign policy requirements, the scale of a $15 trillion GDP economy, managing the single most powerful military in the world and more.

The problem is you have to hope the fundamental skills of the person and learning curve are in order to handle the job. My personal assessment is that President Obama was not up to the task. Since most indicators are that we will have Romney for our next President, I can only hope he is up to it. He has both positive and negative indicators.

The business thing and Governorship are just indicators, not guarantees.

Originally Posted by Keridan

There is no training or experience that can properly prepare you for being the most powerful person in one of the most powerful countries in the entire world. The responsibilities of that office are beyond anything most people can comprehend. You can get a boost with certain experiences. Romney has indeed been the leader of a state and successfully managed large businesses. But that is a drop in the bucket compared to all the foreign policy requirements, the scale of a $15 trillion GDP economy, managing the single most powerful military in the world and more.

The problem is you have to hope the fundamental skills of the person and learning curve are in order to handle the job. My personal assessment is that President Obama was not up to the task. Since most indicators are that we will have Romney for our next President, I can only hope he is up to it. He has both positive and negative indicators.

The business thing and Governorship are just indicators, not guarantees.

I don't envy either. Whoever wins is gonna have a tough job ahead of him. I think from the economy standpoint Romney may do a better job. Whoever it is though I'm sure will be vilified as the devil unless they perform a miracle.

Romney was a one term governor. Obama was a US senator. As governor, Romney, set up a health care system similar to Obama's Affordable Health Care. The problem with Romney's business was that it was a slash and burn company that he worked for. They fired many people and creditors who were owed money by those companies did not get their money either.

A really big difference is that one would be a president that is a millionnaire; as opposed to a multi-billionnaire, who does not even keep all his bank accounts in the US.

There are countless other differences, i.e. women's rights, gay rights, spending on which social programs, rebuilding infrastructure, etc.

No, but romney's mexican citizenship makes him uniquely unqualified.

Originally Posted by Deuce

Countries aren't corporations.

well in 08 the choice was between a guy who had maybe 6 years of government experience vs one who had several decades and yet more people voted for the rookie. So when i hear obama supporters claim that Obama has more governmental experience right now I just laugh because that same standard was ignored by them in 2008.

In my opinion someone whose only success is getting elected is a NEGATIVE on his record