Businessmen make lousy presidents

Community organizers obviously make lousy presidents.

And the same goes for Congressmen, right?

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...

They are different, but have many similarities.

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

I think what's been ahppening in the last thrity years is that this country has, by attrition, been turned into nothing more that a competetive business. A country does have a responsibilty to compete in trade and GDP, but the focus of the Republican business ethos is reckless exspansion to control markets. Republicans borrow more money than any others and only pretend to be lowering US expenditures; htey cook the books like wall Street, and the result is always some sort of ruin.

As presdent Obama has said, there is so much more to being president. The Republican leadership is in bed with Wall Street, it's all abut the bottom line and socializing the risk to protect the agenda.

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

Now... given that the guy says straight off the bat that he doesn't know anything about "vulture capitalism", and then adds that he put his crack research staff "google search" to the topic... It's pretty safe to say he's no expert on presidential history... That might somewhat excuse him for calling George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and George W Bush as "businessman"... Being a peanut farmer is not being a "businessman" that made a living off of rescuing failing companies... He called Bush Sr. "an oil-man"... LMFAO, that's completely laughable... Bush Sr was a soldier, and a entrenched defense administrator... who was head of the CIA, and Vice President for 8 years... That's not "an oil-man"... And GWB may have been in charge of a few businesses that he got hooked up with because of who he was, but that was also while he was a wreck and a partier that drank too much and did coke... In his mature life, he was more known as the Gov. of TX, and the owner of the TX Rangers who got the stadium built... Again, that's not a "businessman" who is worth over $250M... So this guy's insight is as meaningless as say... Lady Gaga's...

Secondly, your idea of the chain of command in a traditional company totally contradicts the environment and management structure at Bain, and how it actually involves having to convince everyone to unify around an idea in order to act. Steve Ellis, current CEO at Bain describes the difference in structure well in this completely boring speech he gave at UC Berkley...

Steve Ellis, Bain & Company - Haas School - YouTube
he begins the description of his role at Bain at 4:20, and the difference at 5:15

So you're dealing with a whole different animal here with Romney. He's not the top down dictatorial type. He operated with new management techniques and new business models, which made Bain become the successful company it was.

Additionally, Romney has proven success as a leader not only in business, but also with non-governmental organizations as well. He was excellent as the leader of the Mormon Mission in France, he has been an excellent leader of his local parish as well. He also excelled as the CEO and President of the Salt Lake City Olympics and the Organizing Committee.

Furthermore, after proven successfull leadership in business, Romney also provided great leadership, that accomplished a lot, as Governor of MA (a role which actually served as the model for the President of the US).

So you're out of your league when talking about this.

The US has never had a president with the accumen that Mitt Romney has in business. The US has also never had a president, who has proven success in business, government, and non-governmental organizations... This is something there is no historical perspective to reach to... You can speak to several instances of weak, indecisive liberals, such as Carter, Johnson, Truman, that were average presidents at best... but you can't speak to an ultra successful businessman, who made his living straightening out businesses, that then proved his leadership ability in the public sector...

If we are doing the presidential comparison thing, Obama is like Carter... and Romney is like no president we have seen before... I'll take Romney in that situation (for those of us who lived under Carter, it's a no brainer)

jet57 said:

I think what's been ahppening in the last thrity years is that this country has, by attrition, been turned into nothing more that a competetive business. A country does have a responsibilty to compete in trade and GDP, but the focus of the Republican business ethos is reckless exspansion to control markets. Republicans borrow more money than any others and only pretend to be lowering US expenditures; htey cook the books like wall Street, and the result is always some sort of ruin.

As presdent Obama has said, there is so much more to being president. The Republican leadership is in bed with Wall Street, it's all abut the bottom line and socializing the risk to protect the agenda.

Click to expand...

Who is president Obama in bed with? Last I checked he was the love of Wall St... with Geithner and co... Though, to be fair, he may also be sharing a bed with the Chinese... so, I'd have to ask which is better? Wall St or Beijing?

Gimmesometruth said:

Straw, you still miss the point, again intentionally.

Click to expand...

Dude, just because you don't like the way I did it, it doesn't mean I didn't respond to any legitimate point made to me.

I can't help what you pull out of your ass when I obliterate the points you actually do make; as I said, if you never made them to start with, I had nothing to respond to.

Gimmesometruth said:

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.



No you missed it, intentionally.

Show me any Gen who kept the exact same mindset in their Presidency.

...and you fail to support it.




Just like you...... without the intentional diversions and red herrings. No, because you did not get the point in the first place.

Click to expand...

I addressed everything you said, and I will not go on the typical Gimmesometruth carousel, around and around again.

As usual, you've confused yourself as to what you're actually arguing.

Meathead said:

Community organizers obviously make lousy presidents.

Click to expand...

Well . . . there IS a one-for-one correlation for that.

But correlation doesn't imply causality, so it's still not fair to say.

IndepCentristMA said:

He called Bush Sr. "an oil-man"... LMFAO, that's completely laughable... Bush Sr was a soldier, and a entrenched defense administrator... who was head of the CIA, and Vice President for 8 years... That's not "an oil-man"...

Click to expand...

Some history you missed:

After graduating from Yale, Bush moved his family to West Texas. His father's business connections proved useful when he ventured into the oil business, starting as a sales clerk[11] with Dresser Industries,[12] a subsidiary of Brown Brothers Harriman. His father had served on the board of directors there for 22 years. Bush started the Bush-Overby Oil Development company in 1951[13] and co-founded the Zapata Petroleum Corporation, an oil company which drilled in the Permian Basin in Texas, two years later. He was named president of the Zapata Offshore Company, a subsidiary which specialized in offshore drilling, in 1954.[11] The subsidiary became independent in 1958, so Bush moved the company from Midland, Texas to Houston.[12] He continued serving as president of the company until 1964, and later chairman until 1966, but his ambitions turned political.[12] By that time, Bush had become a millionaire.

Click to expand...

Harshaw said:

Dude, just because you don't like the way I did it, it doesn't mean I didn't respond to any legitimate point made to me.

I can't help what you pull out of your ass when I obliterate the points you actually do make; as I said, if you never made them to start with, I had nothing to respond to.

Click to expand...

Harshaw said:

I addressed everything you said, and I will not go on the typical Gimmesometruth carousel, around and around again.

As usual, you've confused yourself as to what you're actually arguing.

Click to expand...

No, I haven't confused my points, you intentionally ignore the points made by the OP and by me. That is your M.O.

Gimmesometruth said:

No, I haven't confused my points, you intentionally ignore the points made by the OP and by me. That is your M.O.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Harshaw said:

Dude, just because you don't like the way I did it, it doesn't mean I didn't respond to any legitimate point made to me.

I can't help what you pull out of your ass when I obliterate the points you actually do make; as I said, if you never made them to start with, I had nothing to respond to.

Click to expand...

And

Harshaw said:

I addressed everything you said, and I will not go on the typical Gimmesometruth carousel, around and around again.

As usual, you've confused yourself as to what you're actually arguing.

Click to expand...

If you wish to blather on further, refer to these posts again and again.

Harshaw said:

AndIf you wish to blather on further, refer to these posts again and again.

Click to expand...

You did not address my points, you ignore them by various means, either directly or by diverting through semantic exercises. It is the same old story, I've seen it before just as you are doing now.

AdamT said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you know that there is no one size fits all description of how a CEO runs his/her company. Just like I am sure you felt the same way about all community organizers.

It is more important to look at the person and try to figure out if he is collaborative or more authoritarian. My guess is that Obama is more strong willed and has people jump to his orders more than a Romney. Let's remember that in a top of the line Private equity company, more than in most companies not only do you have a lot of smart people but a lot of people that think very highly of themselves. You can't create a great company, which most recognize Bain Capital as being by having the person running the place a dictator.

Perhaps with Romney and his Mass. connections we can have another Presidency which fills the cabinet with the " Best and Brightest".

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

Just because a president, or any politician of the matter, is centered around economic experience, doesn't conclude that they are a "lousy president." If that was the case, then Ronald Reagan (who, for your information, was an actor prior to his presidency,) would be centered around fooling the public or unable to convey their true position. I believe that Reagan was one of the best presidents our country has ever known.

In my opinion, a businessman is well-rounded with handling budgets/income and is a profound problem-solver. Despite the fact that there have been some "unsuccesful" presidents who came from the business occupation, Carter for example, there is little to assume that a businessman is a lousy president.

To sum it up, a businessman has more experience in the economical field and the skills it requires to run a presidency. But I also believe that stereotypical statements are usually inaccurate and difficult to back up with sound facts.

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

can't agree with your premise
nor can i agree that Carter was a bad president or that dubya was a business man
he was a figure head of the baseball organization and he was the owner's son in the oil business; yes, he had his own failed enterprises, but he was always saved by friends of his dad before he went bankrupt

then we can look at Washington. hell of a business person as well as president.
i would compare romney to hoover; both investment bankers. neither true business men, familiar with the nuts and bolts of business operations
romney keeps insisting he can help our economic recovery better than Obama
the problem is, i never see any specifics from him, describing what actions he would take which would differ from those of Obama

and for those who do not believe a business person would make a good president, i commend to you Gary Johnson. libertarian candidate and former governor of new mexico. but for term limits he would still be the republican governor of that predominantly blue state. he started and grew a construction company. be assured, he would know what government needs to do to help business as well as what it needs quit doing, which hinders the economy

IndepCentristMA said:

Who is president Obama in bed with? Last I checked he was the love of Wall St... with Geithner and co... Though, to be fair, he may also be sharing a bed with the Chinese... so, I'd have to ask which is better? Wall St or Beijing?

Click to expand...

El hefe is buttering both sides of the bread. After he's inagurated in Jan 2013 he's going to have a lot to answer for. And the Dems better get goin . . .

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...

General Grant was a lousy president. Eisenhower was the last of the great Republicans. As with Washington, Eisenhower didn't want to be president, but he was drafted.

He was a great man

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

big statist welfare socialists who have no accomplishments in either the public or private sector other than getting elected to office generally suck big time when it comes to doing what is best for our nation

This was an interesting thread to read through - revealing in several ways on the misconceptions of business, businessmen, president, and everythign else -really - the blanket statements aren't very endearing :roll:

Being a good/bad president really doesn't have much - at all -to do about your 'career in life' - what it relies on, it seems, are your values and beliefs - your tenacity to see to things, your integrity and ability to get things done, your desire to strive and push forward, and your ability to respond to stress and engage in foreign affairs and politics with smooth decisiveness . . . and so on: so forth.

Why can't a good businessmen do a good job at these things? Is the 'business' the bad thing - or would it be their morals or qualities mentioned above?

In an effort to run someone into the ground people seem so damn quick to assume that your career defines who you are - but does it? Are you defined by your career to the fullest extent? How accurate is someone's opinion of you if they only judge you by your employment?

Anyway - this post peaked my curiosity: i had to look up the main occupation of our presidents just for kicks:

Washington was a farmer and a soldier
Adams: a lawyer
Jefferson: lawyer, farmer
Madison: lawyer
Monroe: lawyer
Adams: lawyer
Jackson: lawyer, soldier
Van Buren: lawyer
Harrison: soldier
Tyler: lawyer
Polk: lawyer
Taylor: soldier
Filmore: lawyer
Pierce: lawyer, public official
Buchanan: lawyer
Lincoln: lawyer
Johnson: Tailor, public official
Grant: soldier
Hayes: lawyer
Garfield: Teacher, public official
Arthur: Lawyer
Cleveland: lawyer
McKinley: lawyer
Roosevelt: Author, lawyer, public official
Taft: Lawyer, public official
Wilson: Teacher, public official
Harding: Editor-Publisher
Coolidge: lawyer
Hoover: Engineer
Roosevelt: Public official, lawyer
Truman: Farmer, public official
Eisenhower: soldier
Kennedy: Author, public official
Johnson: Teacher, public official
Nixon: Lawyer, public official
Ford: Lawyer, public official
Carter: Farmer, public official
Reagan: Actor, public official
Bush: Businessman, public official
Clinton: Lawyer, public official
Bush: Businessman
Obama: Lawyer


As the crow flies: we need to stop electing all these damn lawyer since they're such an evil brood - yeah? :roll: So give me a break, truly. It's character and all those other things: not your job description. We've even elected and actor - so don't give me this dribble the Romney's bad because business was his thing. . .I don't think it matters that much, truly!

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

I would say that history shows us that activist that never had a real job in their life make bad presidents.

Community organizers rank far below businessmen in my book. The president does not initiate all policy, most presidents, even the former actors, have their personal missions in mind. DC does does not work fast, they do not work smart but they sure do plow through money in a hurry. That alone makes a businessman nervous. If all Romney does is slow the growth of federal spending we are better off, if he actually cuts it we are WAY better off. ABO 2012. No he didn't!

AdamT said:

It's odd that Republicans are so insistent that what we really need is a president who's main experience is in business. There are many reasons why I think that's not the case. First, a businessman has a monomaniacal focus on profits. Profits are the only thing that really matter. In conrast, a president has a world of competing interests that he has to deal with. Second, a businessman is more akin to a dictator or general than he is to a president; there is a defined chain of command and people generally have to do what he says. And while the CEO of a public company may have to deal with shareholders and a board of directors, more often than not he or she has a free hand. In contrast, a president can get very little done if he doesn't have the cooperation of Congress, and in some instances, the courts. This almost always involves compromise.

But what does history tell us? Who are some recent businessman presidents? Herbert Hoover ... Jimmy Carter ... George W. Bush. 'Nuff said?

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Click to expand...

So, what's Obama excuse?

apdst said:

So, what's Obama excuse?

Click to expand...

being a welfare socialist means never having to say you are sorry?

TurtleDude said:

being a welfare socialist means never having to say you are sorry?

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for someone to blame Bush, call the Republicans obstructionists, or scream racism.