• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Businessmen make lousy presidents

Gimmesometruth said:
You are still missing the essential point, the dogma of business is profit for the business, the dogma of governing is acting in the best interests of all citizens, they are nearly diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...

How are they diametrically opposed?

Profits lead to companies staying in business, and continuing to employ people. Those people then have money to spend (profit on their labor), which contributes to the economy by way of other companies... that need profits to sustain their employees... who then contribute to the economy...

Having access to resources, be they mineral, food, or the currency that represents all resources, is in the best interest of all citizens. Just look at the Soviet Union for an example of why competition and profit motive are GOOD for people. If you don't believe me, do a google search for your local county's budget and see just how much they spend on maintaining your local roads... and then go for a drive.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

That was already addressed. As I said, the same "mindset" characteristics apply to generals/military officers, and a number of them were well-regarded - the majority of them, in fact.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that SOME military men have become good Presidents (they were after all beholden to the POTUS) , but you still ignore the main point, they did not keep the same mindset, the same ideas in running that position. The main mindset in war is to defeat an enemy, the main mindset as a POTUS is to serve the best interests of all citizens.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
How are they diametrically opposed?

Profits lead to companies staying in business, and continuing to employ people. Those people then have money to spend (profit on their labor), which contributes to the economy by way of other companies... that need profits to sustain their employees... who then contribute to the economy...

Having access to resources, be they mineral, food, or the currency that represents all resources, is in the best interest of all citizens. Just look at the Soviet Union for an example of why competition and profit motive are GOOD for people. If you don't believe me, do a google search for your local county's budget and see just how much they spend on maintaining your local roads... and then go for a drive.
Click to expand...
They are diametrically opposed in that a business is PRIMARILY concerned with concentrating profits to one point, the business, whereas the POTUS is interested in creating the best environment for all citizens.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You are still missing the essential point, the dogma of business is profit for the business, the dogma of governing is acting in the best interests of all citizens, they are nearly diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my essential point. Not a problem. My point is that making a profit is not a simple squeeze the most money out of a product. For example you can change ingredients to save money but consumers may not like the change.

You need to attract the best employees you can, part of that is salary and wages. Another part may be how you are viewed in your community. Corporations I have been involved in donate quite a bit to local charities, universities etc. There is no "profit" in it. There is a saying that doing good, is good business.

My sense is that due to the bad economy, the rhetoric of this administration and the lack of understanding of what goes on corporations is the reason for posts such as yours.

I am also not saying that what I write is the mindset of ALL companies, clearly not. There is no one size fits all. That is the trouble with bumper sticker slogans. They fit but often are much less than the full story.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Are you saying that unlike businessmen, most "civil servants" aren't evil, self-interested bastards?
Click to expand...

Servant implies serving another interest.

There are those at the top of government that have an agenda based on selfish motives (e.g. the congressman looking to get a cushy consulting job)

However you used the word 'most'. That's a very ignorant statement in my opinion. MOST civil servants are employees, not administrators. And even the majority of administrators answer to someone else.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not surprised that SOME military men have become good Presidents (they were after all beholden to the POTUS)
Click to expand...

:lamo

You say that as though it has some bearing to their jobs as military men. They follow orders with the same "mindset" no matter what the orders are.


but you still ignore the main point, they did not keep the same mindset, the same ideas in running that position.
Click to expand...

That "point" was never made to "ignore"; you pulled it out of your ass just now.


The main mindset in war is to defeat an enemy, the main mindset as a POTUS is to serve the best interests of all citizens.
Click to expand...

So? A businessman can't "change his mindset" too? :lamo
 
Gimmesometruth said:
They are diametrically opposed in that a business is PRIMARILY concerned with concentrating profits to one point, the business, whereas the POTUS is interested in creating the best environment for all citizens.
Click to expand...

Sort of like a CEO. The entire country is the company. The national economy is the Accounting Department; the DoD is the Security Office; civil liberties issues are handled by HR. It is a very neat parallel.
 
washunut said:
I think you are missing my essential point. Not a problem. My point is that making a profit is not a simple squeeze the most money out of a product. For example you can change ingredients to save money but consumers may not like the change.

You need to attract the best employees you can, part of that is salary and wages. Another part may be how you are viewed in your community. Corporations I have been involved in donate quite a bit to local charities, universities etc. There is no "profit" in it. There is a saying that doing good, is good business.
Click to expand...
Oh, no, it has a lot to do with "profit", the tax saving are significant in doing so.

My sense is that due to the bad economy, the rhetoric of this administration and the lack of understanding of what goes on corporations is the reason for posts such as yours.

I am also not saying that what I write is the mindset of ALL companies, clearly not. There is no one size fits all. That is the trouble with bumper sticker slogans. They fit but often are much less than the full story.
Click to expand...
I think the OP fleshes out the meaning, if you choose to reduce it to a bumper sticker, that is up to you. I understand the ideas behind it. There is only so much you can fit in the thread title.
 
Travis007 said:
Lets get real... dumb liberal marxists we have found out make the worst...
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion, as we've never had a marxist President. I know the far-right and teatards have been spreading that ignorant talking point about Obama, however, when you really look at his record, his policies vary from conservative-Dem to moderate-right.

I really have to ask.. and this is sincere.. do you work for Obama?
Click to expand...

You failed to actually comment on the OP and only made a backhanded attack on the poster.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, no, it has a lot to do with "profit", the tax saving are significant in doing so.

I think the OP fleshes out the meaning, if you choose to reduce it to a bumper sticker, that is up to you. I understand the ideas behind it. There is only so much you can fit in the thread title.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it is silly to say that someone gives $1 in charity so they can get a tax deduction of $.35, still a cost of $.65. This is not a tax credit but a tax deduction. Believe it or not companies for the most part want to be good citizens of their community. Are there examples of companies that are not that way sure, nothing ( or very little) in life is black and white as you will learn.
 
Harshaw said:
You say that as though it has some bearing to their jobs as military men. They follow orders with the same "mindset" no matter what the orders are.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I can't decipher this, could you make your point more clearly?




That "point" was never made to "ignore"; you pulled it out of your ass just now.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you missed it in the OP.




So? A businessman can't "change his mindset" too?
Click to expand...
They could, the point would be that they are not following the business mindset as a POTUS.
 
washunut said:
Don't you think it is silly to say that someone gives $1 in charity so they can get a tax deduction of $.35, still a cost of $.65. This is not a tax credit but a tax deduction. Believe it or not companies for the most part want to be good citizens of their community. Are there examples of companies that are not that way sure, nothing ( or very little) in life is black and white as you will learn.
Click to expand...
Well, I think you are simplifying the tax ramifications of corporate "charity", but thats as far as it goes since this isn't a thread on that.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Well, I think you are simplifying the tax ramifications of corporate "charity", but thats as far as it goes since this isn't a thread on that.
Click to expand...

You are right, the thread is based on a misconception of the role of a CEO and what makes great and profitable companies. I am guessing that you never worked in a large corporation.
 
washunut said:
Interesting observations. Based on my experience you are as wrong as can be and probably explains many of your posts I have read.

Now why do I think you are wrong.

Let's start with profits. In order for a company to be profitable it needs to be able to take into consideration not just costs as your post might imply but also satisfying customer needs, having a motivated workforce, working well in your community, and letting shareholders understand how you intend to create value.

The best managers understand that many views are better than one. While a CEO at the end of the day gets to decide, understanding all of the views and concerns from the CFO. VP HR, COO, legal etc are critical with coming up with the BEST answer. Now does everyone manage this way, no. Just like not all managers lead the way you pose it which is dictatorial.

So the best managers in my view are the best listeners and then deciders based on everything they hear. Perhaps that is why Romney is called a flip flopper. He can change his mind if a good enough argument persuades him another approach in better. That is what I would hope for in a president who is either to dogmatic or so beholden to special interests that he has to act as an unthinking robot.
Click to expand...

In your experience? Aren't you still in school? :lol:
 
Harshaw said:
Didn't say they did. Much as not all "businessmen" have made lousy Presidents.

See that? You're helping me demolish AdamT's premise. Aren't you proud?
Click to expand...

I think you forgot to name the businessemen presidents who DIDN'T suck? Any in, say, the last century?
 
AdamT said:
In your experience? Aren't you still in school? :lol:
Click to expand...

Close, recently retired. Just did a little consulting for the old firm today.
 
hazlnut said:
How do you come to that conclusion, as we've never had a marxist President. I know the far-right and teatards have been spreading that ignorant talking point about Obama, however, when you really look at his record, his policies vary from conservative-Dem to moderate-right.



You failed to actually comment on the OP and only made a backhanded attack on the poster.
Click to expand...


No I commented.. you can read correct?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Sorry, I can't decipher this, could you make your point more clearly?
Click to expand...

Sure. That they were "beholden" to POTUS is utterly immaterial. Everyone's beholden to someone. Everyone.

(How was that not obvious?)

Well, I think you missed it in the OP.
Click to expand...

That generals "change their mindsets" when they become POTUS? :lamo Point out exactly where. Or that anyone changes their mindset when they become POTUS.

No, I rather think the "point" in the OP is just the opposite.


They could, the point would be that they are not following the business mindset as a POTUS.
Click to expand...

And another point you just pulled out of your ass -- and it's a point which makes the entire OP irrelevant, by the way.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

That was already addressed. As I said, the same "mindset" characteristics apply to generals/military officers, and a number of them were well-regarded - the majority of them, in fact.
Click to expand...

And like I said ... SO WHAT? I referenced generals in my OP. Being a general is not the same thing as being a president/politician.
 
washunut said:
Close, recently retired. Just did a little consulting for the old firm today.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have confused you with someone else.

In any case, my point stands. Of course a businessman consults with others, but ultimately the CEO of a company -- in particular a privately held company like Bain -- has ONE GOAL in mind, and ultimate authority to achieve that goal, whereas a president has hundreds of objectives and in many cases very limited authority.

We're seeing this play out in real time in Florida, where Rick Scott became governor (incredibly) on his record as a CEO. He immediately proceeded to issue commands as if he was still a CEO, managing to piss off virtually everyone in the state capital, including members of his own party ... driving his approval rating among the lowest in the country. Not being an idiot, he eventually realized that government doesn't work like business, so he hired a long-time political hack to serve as his chief of staff. That guy just resigned under criticism of rampant cronyism and anger over the fact that he basically set himself up as the surrogate governor, with all business channeled through his office.
 
AdamT said:
And like I said ... SO WHAT? I referenced generals in my OP. Being a general is not the same thing as being a president/politician.
Click to expand...

Yet they've made fine presidents, with the same background you find objectionable in businessmen. Your premise is shaky.

(As with Gimmesometruth, how was this not clear the first time? You quoted me. It's simple English.)
 
Harshaw said:
Sure. That they were "beholden" to POTUS is utterly immaterial. Everyone's beholden to someone. Everyone.

(How was that not obvious?)
Click to expand...
Ah, you are getting hung up on a single word I used while ignoring the point, it is the same old diversion you use all the time. If you chose to avoid the point, that is fine, but you are on notice.



That generals "change their mindsets" when they become POTUS?
Click to expand...
No you missed it, intentionally.

:lamo Point out exactly where. Or that anyone changes their mindset when they become POTUS.
Click to expand...
Show me any Gen who kept the exact same mindset in their Presidency.

No, I rather think the "point" in the OP is just the opposite.
Click to expand...
...and you fail to support it.




And another point you just pulled out of your ass --
Click to expand...
Just like you...... without the intentional diversions and red herrings.
and it's a point which makes the entire OP irrelevant, by the way.
Click to expand...
No, because you did not get the point in the first place.
 
Harshaw said:
Yet they've made fine presidents, with the same background you find objectionable in businessmen. Your premise is shaky.

(As with Gimmesometruth, how was this not clear the first time? You quoted me. It's simple English.)
Click to expand...
Straw, you still miss the point, again intentionally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom