Businessmen make lousy presidents

[Aberration]

More like parting them out and gutting them up for profit.

When they are not profitable themselves. What else is there to do?

 

[johnny_rebson]

Your argument kind of falls in on itself. You are arguing that Romney has no federal experience but governor's experience is analgous to those of a president. Splitting hairs with apdst is all well and good but the basis for your argument doesnt hold up.

Semantically? Ok sure. Practically? Nah.

The problem is Romney is too similar to Obama.

Obama created ObamaCare, Romney created RomneyCare.

 

[sangha]

Missed the last “stints”?!? That was 16 years of his career that you missed… and even refer to as a “stint”… it’s also the difference between 10 years in business and 26 years in business… that changes everything from your bogus accusation that his career mirrors that of other pols… Again, 26 years in business, 7 in public service, only 4 of which as an elected official… That’s very different from how you made it seem, and every example that’s been put forth…

The point is still lost on you. Romney is a business specialist. A highly regarded and sought after executive, known for his excellent leadership abilities when it comes to turning around fiscal situations. That's not Romney had a hand in some businesses... Several Presidents had a hand in some businesses, but they made their careers on public service... Even if Romney added two presidential terms to his vast career, 2/3rds of his executive leadership would be as a private sector CEO... As it stands, at the time of the election, 3/4ths of Romney's experience is in the private sector...

That was not the case with Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Truman, or any other President, who had worked in business, but was not the specialty that got them where they were. Yes, they participated in the private sector during their life, but they made their careers off of public service, either through military sevice, state government, or federal government...

Bush Sr was known by his father’s public service, and his own. People knew he had made money owning oil. However he was seen as strong on defense / foreign affairs from his time as a Navy pilot, the director of the CIA, and VP to Reagan (who was slapping around the Soviets during the Cold War).

Bush Jr was known for his father’s public service. He ran on his ability to unite people, which he proved he could do as Governor of a state, that has a historical Democratic legislature, but he brought them together. He also ran on his work as owner of the Texas Rangers, to bring the community together to build the stadium.

Carter was known as a peanut farmer. He wasn’t known for his success at growing of peanuts; the peanut farmer gig was to have him recognized as one of the local yokels, just like you (eventhough everyone knew him as a haughty intellectual, who was a mathematician that worked designing nuclear powered vessels for the Navy). He was also known for his time serving in GA, which included 2 terms as Congressman and 1 as Governor. Carter, let’s also remember, was elected by the benefit of running as the Democrat in the first election since the Watergate scandal came to head, and the nation was going to vote in essentially anyone other than a Republican.

Truman wasn’t elected president, he became president after FDR died. He was then re-elected as president once, before chosing not to run again. He wasn’t known for his own work, he was inheriting a legacy. To be noted, he wasn’t FDR’s original Vice President. He was appointed as FDR’s Vice President in 1944, and was not recognized for any work as VP. Instead he was known for his work on the Truman Committee of the Senate, which handled military affairs during WWII. Truman himself, was a soldier from WWI, and a remained on as a captain after the war for a few years. He did take a brief run at business, but he had a shop that went bankrupt. It was then when he was elected as a Senator, that he gained prominence, serving 2 and a half terms before being chosen as VP.

Hoover was known as an engineer, metallurgist, pioneer, but a very accomplished man in the private sector, that I will give you. It was a whole different conceptual business than Romney, however, the Gold Mining business… where its not hit or miss on the value of the product, since gold is always immensely valuable… but its hit or miss on getting the land that has it, and getting it mined efficiently… So Hoover made his money organizing land investments, and organizing miners to labor efficiently..

However, Hoover is credited with being a bad president, because of the stock market crash in 1929. What president would have done well with the stock market crashing 8 months into their presidency? He was not the cause of the crash. Like with most presidents, they’re recognized for invents that weren’t of their doing that occurred under their presidency and how they reacted to them. Hoover actually had intended on cutting through inefficiency and corruption in government.

What you can say though, is that Hoover’s unsuccessful attempts as president to deal with the stock market crash mirror the unsuccessful efforts of Obama. His ideas included public works projects, such as the Hoover Dam. It also included a massive tax increase on the top bracket. He also raised the corporate tax rate. Somehow it didn’t work out. (I know, odd to consider raising the tax rate on people who have money to start businesses, and raising the tax rate on business conducted didn’t actually increase business… :roll

What remained under Hoover was a lengthy period of stagnation, with slight recovery… How strange to get the same result when Obama used the same policies after our recent economic crisis… While Obama hasn’t actually raised the corporate tax rate, it remains extremely high comparatively at 35%. He also hasn’t “raised” tax rates on the top bracket, but he’s been talking about it for 5 years now, which says to the wealthy, move your money into offshore accounts so you don’t lose it. That negates attempts to start businesses in a down economy, when most wealthy know, that’s prime opportunity to start business.

That’s where Mitt Romney’s business experience comes in. He succeeded in rescuing businesses during many economic downturns. He has helped steer troubled businesses through multiple recessions. He knows you lower the tax rate on business to encourage business. He also knows you don’t punish the people who have capital available to start businesses when the loans are not as easily accessible as they were. So you can compare and contrast Romney and Obama’s approaches with that of Hoover’s, as to whose will spark growth in the economy.

blah, blah, blah

The point is that they were all businessmen, including GHWB and bush* and Carter.

Your use of the straw man (ie "that changes everything from your bogus accusation that his career mirrors that of other pols…") which I never said, just shows that you have to make up stuff in order to have a point

 

[sangha]

Truman and wilson were both probably in the top 5 WORST presidents, not best. ROFLMAO at that list.

Also, since when does running a ranch or plantation not count as a business?

According to IndepCentristMA, the only people who count as "businessmen" are mgmt consultants

 

[sangha]

Actually, that's not accurate. Romney was a governer, which gives him plenty of experience with how the Federal government works.

Romney has been successful as an executive. Obama has been a complete failure as an executive.

Some people have said you know history, but I don't see how anyone who knows history would think that Governor of a State gives someone experience working in the federal govt

 

[sangha]

You are still spinning. Obama has worked in the federal government. You can argue his work has left alot to be desired, but you cannot claim he is not the more experienced in the federal government.

Dont' you get it?

State governors get experience working with the Fed govt. United States Senators get none :roll:

 

[sangha]

Farming isn't business...

:cuckoo: :cuckoo:

 

[sangha]

But, this particular candidate has foreign diplomacy experience, when organizing the Salt Lake City Olympics, and when working with international companies...

Furthermore, the state he was Governor in, is the model that the US Constitution was written to be like, because of it's strong central executive... John Adams' model, that which James Madison copied for the Constitution...

He didn't "organize" the Olympics - he raised money to get them out of debt.

 

[sangha]

Again your argument falls in on itself. You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President. Arguing that the incumbant should always be re-elected essentially. As a challenger Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Im not exactly a fan but even I can admit that. You disagree?

I disagree

It is widely acknowledged that the Presidency is a unique responsibility. This doesn't mean that the incumbent should be re-elected, if you think they're doing a poor job and one of their challengers can do better

 

[OpportunityCost]

I disagree

It is widely acknowledged that the Presidency is a unique responsibility. This doesn't mean that the incumbent should be re-elected, if you think they're doing a poor job and one of their challengers can do better

So you are saying Romney does not have executive experience? Because that was the question, not what you posited after.

The closest thing we have to Presidential experience is being a governor. Romney has that experience, so he has the closest experience to being President that can reasonably be expected.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Romney has that experience...

Romney has the "experience" of creating RomneyCare.

 

[Redress]

Again your argument falls in on itself. You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President. Arguing that the incumbant should always be re-elected essentially. As a challenger Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Im not exactly a fan but even I can admit that. You disagree?

I am not arguing that experience should be the deciding factor. It is simply a factor. And yes, incumbent presidents always have the advantage in experience. That is simply the nature of things.

 

[TurtleDude]

2md non-sequitor noted

Maybe someday TD will notice that I never said that labor was not a commodity

Maybe some day you will figure out I really don't care about what you say since most of it is a waste of bandwidth

but since you are engaging in distortions, I noted that you said some corporations treat their employees (labor) as disposable. and the obvious retort is so what? labor is a commodity, if you no longer need it why keep paying for it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Romney has the "experience" of creating RomneyCare.

Romney also has the experience of actually being successful in something other than politics and before he entered politics. which distinguishes him from people who have sucked on the taxpayer's tit for most or all of their adult lives=like Obama, Santorum or the Salamander

 

[sangha]

So you are saying Romney does not have executive experience?

Straw man noted

Because that was the question, not what you posited after.

It is awfully dishonest of you to misrepresent what I was responding to, and since it was your own words I was responding to (and you're now backing away from), I'll add that it's a cowardly argument

Here's what you really said

Again your argument falls in on itself. You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President. Arguing that the incumbant should always be re-elected essentially. As a challenger Romney is well experienced in an executive role. Im not exactly a fan but even I can admit that. You disagree?

You said that "You are arguing that no one but the President is experienced at being President" and therefore, the incumbent should always be re-elected. My post was clealy a response to that.

 

[sangha]

Maybe some day you will figure out I really don't care about what you say since most of it is a waste of bandwidth

but since you are engaging in distortions, I noted that you said some corporations treat their employees (labor) as disposable. and the obvious retort is so what? labor is a commodity, if you no longer need it why keep paying for it.

Yes, you don't care so much that you keep responding to my posts :roll:

And labor isn't always a commodity, but sometimes it is. "So what?" is not an obvious retort to a fact. It's the way fools divert attention away from their lack of an argument

But at least you stopped repeating your dishonest claim that I said that labor is not a commodity

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Yeah, and I was in the navy for 6 years, so you could argue I have foreign policy experience. I would not make that argument either because it is equally silly.

Well... serving in the Navy and dealing with policy are two different things... which is why that claim is silly... if you dealt with policy in the Navy that would be one thing...

It's a whole other thing with Romney, because as President of the Olympics he was dealing with the Presidents, Foreign Ministers, Embassadors, and other diplomats from the respective countries, as well as the heads of major international organizations such as the UN, NATO, etc. So he has experience in negotiating with people from countries all over the world over official matters. Additionally, he has the board room negotiation expertise, including dealing with top businessmen from all over the world. Then as Governor, he worked with the National Guard soldiers from MA, and this was during a particular time when Otis and Hanscom AF Bases were being closed, and together with Kennedy and Kerry negotiated the adaptation of those bases to remain open as research and intelligence bases. So he actually has foreign policy experience. As much as, if not more so than, most candidates for President prior to taking office.

 

[AdamT]

Well... serving in the Navy and dealing with policy are two different things... which is why that claim is silly... if you dealt with policy in the Navy that would be one thing...

It's a whole other thing with Romney, because as President of the Olympics he was dealing with the Presidents, Foreign Ministers, Embassadors, and other diplomats from the respective countries, as well as the heads of major international organizations such as the UN, NATO, etc. So he has experience in negotiating with people from countries all over the world over official matters. Additionally, he has the board room negotiation expertise, including dealing with top businessmen from all over the world. Then as Governor, he worked with the National Guard soldiers from MA, and this was during a particular time when Otis and Hanscom AF Bases were being closed, and together with Kennedy and Kerry negotiated the adaptation of those bases to remain open as research and intelligence bases. So he actually has foreign policy experience. As much as, if not more so than, most candidates for President prior to taking office.

Mighty impressive. Can he also see Russia from his house?

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Straw man noted

Straw man, Straw man... what are you a parot? sangha want a cracker? That wasn't a straw man, it was a legitimate question posed to you over your statement. It wasn't a straw man the last 3 times I saw you say it as well. It's becoming clear you don't know what a straw man is... you just heard some1 say it and thought it was a cool response to an argument... It's not... Stop mimicking Jon Stewart and start addressing the arguments presented, or you'll end up another bird to be ignored.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Mighty impressive. Can he also see Russia from his house?

Which house?

 

[IndepCentristMA]

He didn't "organize" the Olympics - he raised money to get them out of debt.

He also organized them... Hence why he was the CEO and President of the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee, and President of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. He was not a fund raiser, he reorganized the whole operation, how it was being conducted, including elimating the corruption, and putting in place detail and results oriented managers, who he would override when he saw necessary.

Here is a video from the "Making of Mitt Romney" series by the The Boston Globe from 2007. Even despite the Globe's heavily anti-Romney bias in 2007, the video still shows him in a positive light, and how he was an active part of the success of the games.



Regardless of your opinion, they clearly say he orchestrated the opening and closing ceremonies, and how he was actively involved with the managers or the different events, and how he was willing to step in and take over to actively direct traffic to make sure the events ran smoothly.

 

[Redress]

Well... serving in the Navy and dealing with policy are two different things... which is why that claim is silly... if you dealt with policy in the Navy that would be one thing...

It's a whole other thing with Romney, because as President of the Olympics he was dealing with the Presidents, Foreign Ministers, Embassadors, and other diplomats from the respective countries, as well as the heads of major international organizations such as the UN, NATO, etc. So he has experience in negotiating with people from countries all over the world over official matters. Additionally, he has the board room negotiation expertise, including dealing with top businessmen from all over the world. Then as Governor, he worked with the National Guard soldiers from MA, and this was during a particular time when Otis and Hanscom AF Bases were being closed, and together with Kennedy and Kerry negotiated the adaptation of those bases to remain open as research and intelligence bases. So he actually has foreign policy experience. As much as, if not more so than, most candidates for President prior to taking office.

He was dealing with other people on his level in other countries, which does not give him any significant foreign policy experience. Or else the fact that I have dealt with a large number of people in foreign countries gives me foreign policy experience.

 

[sangha]

Straw man, Straw man... what are you a parot? sangha want a cracker? That wasn't a straw man, it was a legitimate question posed to you over your statement. It wasn't a straw man the last 3 times I saw you say it as well. It's becoming clear you don't know what a straw man is... you just heard some1 say it and thought it was a cool response to an argument... It's not... Stop mimicking Jon Stewart and start addressing the arguments presented, or you'll end up another bird to be ignored.

It was s straw man. A question that's based on the assertion that other people are making a claim they never actually made (ie the incumbent should always be re-elected) is a straw man and is never leglitimate

 

[sangha]

He also organized them... Hence why he was the CEO and President of the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee, and President of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games. He was not a fund raiser, he reorganized the whole operation, how it was being conducted, including elimating the corruption, and putting in place detail and results oriented managers, who he would override when he saw necessary.

Here is a video from the "Making of Mitt Romney" series by the The Boston Globe from 2007. Even despite the Globe's heavily anti-Romney bias in 2007, the video still shows him in a positive light, and how he was an active part of the success of the games.



Regardless of your opinion, they clearly say he orchestrated the opening and closing ceremonies, and how he was actively involved with the managers or the different events, and how he was willing to step in and take over to actively direct traffic to make sure the events ran smoothly.

No, he didn't organize the Olympics. They were already organized and planned when he took over. He just raised money because the committee was in the red

Choreography and directing traffic are not "organizing the Olympics"

 

[Top Cat]

When they are not profitable themselves. What else is there to do?

Yeah you're right, fixing the problem(s) would be a terrible idea.