• 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

AdamT

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
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...


Lets get real... dumb liberal marxists we have found out make the worst...

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

:roll:

If all of this were true, the same could be said about generals. Even moreso.

But you have a very poor conception of what it takes to run a business, especially if you think there's no "compromise" or no need for tremendous flexibility involved.
 
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...
Are you saying that unlike businessmen, most "civil servants" aren't evil, self-interested bastards?

If so, that seems awfully naive to me. People need to understand that power corrupts, whether it's in the private or public sector. Allowing the public crooks to regulate and "supervise" the private crooks only exacerbates the problem.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Are you saying that unlike businessmen, most "civil servants" aren't evil, self-interested bastards?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that presidents who were former businessmen were bad presidents, and I offered some thoughts as to why.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
So ... what?
Click to expand...

So your "reasoning" fails; generals have made well-regarded Presidents.

Not that it doesn't fail anyway, because you pull two examples out and attempt to apply them to the whole. Can you name the fallacy? Starts with "H" and "G."
 
Harshaw said:
So your "reasoning" fails; generals have made well-regarded Presidents.

Not that it doesn't fail anyway, because you pull two examples out and attempt to apply them to the whole. Can you name the fallacy? Starts with "H" and "G."
Click to expand...
Not all of them have.
 
Well Obama is no businessman and he has been a lousy president, what does that prove?
 
azgreg said:
Well Obama is no businessman and he has been a lousy president, what does that prove?
Click to expand...
That you have a extreme partisan position, among other interesting positions.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

If all of this were true, the same could be said about generals. Even moreso.

But you have a very poor conception of what it takes to run a business, especially if you think there's no "compromise" or no need for tremendous flexibility involved.
Click to expand...

No need for compromise or flexibility when your business experience is buying a company and destroying it and every one that works there grabbing money and taking off.....we dont need that kind of experience...thats a good part of whats got us here
 
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...

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.
 
AdamT said:
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that presidents who were former businessmen were bad presidents, and I offered some thoughts as to why.
Click to expand...

Im saying Marxist losers and socialist liberal morons make the worst..and I present Carter and Obama as evidence..
 
washunut said:
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...
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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Not all of them have.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...
It was never an absolutist argument, but you want to reduce it down as such. The point is the mindset/philosophic differences between governing and running a business, not the person.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It was never an absolutist argument
Click to expand...

It was enough of one - at least presented a general rule. If it weren't, it would have no currency whatsoever.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That you have a extreme partisan position, among other interesting positions.
Click to expand...

I take it you are refering to my avatar. Well, when your wife of many years keeps making a statement it has a tendency to take hold. :lol:
 
Harshaw said:
It was enough of one - at least presented a general rule. If it weren't, it would have no currency whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Your choping out the point of my post reflects your reading habit, you are skipping the content.
 
azgreg said:
I take it you are refering to my avatar. Well, when your wife of many years keeps making a statement it has a tendency to take hold. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry about your domestic situation, but like Har, you ignore the main message.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your choping out the point of my post reflects your reading habit, you are skipping the content.
Click to expand...

: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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm sorry about your domestic situation, but like Har, you ignore the main message.
Click to expand...

No, you just have a general problem figuring out when it's been addressed.

It's a merry-go-round I have no plans spinning in this thread.
 
I'd be interested in seeing the records of all of the presidents who were former businessmen. I've always found it interesting that Lincoln is considered by many to be a great president, but he was a **** businessman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom