Businessmen make lousy presidents (1 Viewer)

[johnny_rebson]

I could definitely vote for a businessman....as long as he wasn't a former governor who created RomneyCare.

 

[jgarden47]

“It’s important to know whether a president has worked in business. It’s important because having worked in business is associated with being a lousy president, at least in the modern era.”
- Daniel Aks

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76693.html

The Great Recession (1929) - President Calvin Coolidge - businessman (mining engineer, investment banker)

Economic Collapse (2012) - President GW Bush - businessman (oil, part baseball team owner,MBA from Harvard)

President Jimmy Carter - businessman (peanut grower) - voted out of office after 1 term

President GHW Bush - businessmen (oil) - voted out of office after 1 term

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan are generally accepted as among our best in the 20thC had no real business background (in fact, Truman was a failed haberdasher.)

 

[jgarden47]

“It’s important to know whether a president has worked in business. It’s important because having worked in business is associated with being a lousy president, at least in the modern era.”
- Daniel Aks

Businessmen make lousy presidents - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

Top 10 Presidents - Ranked
******************************
1. Abraham Lincoln (lawyer)
2. Franklin Roosevelt (lawyer, career politician)
3. Geotge Washington (military)
4. Thomas Jefferson (politician, plantation owner)
5. Theodore Roosevelt (career politician, rancher)
6. Woodrow Wilson (professor, university president, politician)
7. Harry Truman (politician, failed haberdasher)
8. Dwight Eisenhower (military), Andrew Jackson (military)
10. James Polk (state militia, career politician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States


Presidents (businessmen)
******************************************************
President Herbert Hoover (ranked 29th) - businessman (mining engineer, investment banker) - served during The Great Recession (1929)

President Jimmy Carter (ranked 27th)- businessman (peanut grower) - voted out of office after 1 term

President GHW Bush (ranked 22nd) - businessmen (oil) - voted out of office after 1 term

President GW Bush (reaked 34th) - businessman (oil, part baseball team owner,MBA from Harvard) - served during the economic recession of 2008

 

[IndepCentristMA]

So I missed the last stints at bainco and baincap. The point is, the rest of his resume is working for the govt but he's still a businessman. Just like bush* and GHWB. One does not negate the other

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.

 

[vendur]

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?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Oi! and isnt being a slave owner a type of personnel management. . . just gross.

 

[vendur]

Oi! and isnt being a slave owner a type of personnel management. . . just gross.

Democrats still own slaves today.

 

[jgarden47]

Worst Presidents in US History

Rank President
************************
43. Warren Harding
42. James Buchanan
41. Andrew Johnson
40. Franklin Pierce
38. Millard Fillmore
38. William Henty Harrison,
37. Ulysses Grant
36. John Tyler - plantation and slave owner, judge, state legislator, governor, U.S. representative, U.S. senator, Vice President
35. Zachary Taylor - plantation and slave owner, military
34. GW Bush - businessman, governor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

 

[vendur]

Worst Presidents in US History

Rank President
************************
43. Warren Harding
42. James Buchanan
41. Andrew Johnson
40. Franklin Pierce
38. William Henty Harrison, Millard Fillmore

What rank did they give that one president who died like in his first month of office. Must suck to be ranked lower than a guy who was literally DOA as president.

Ahh, just checked, he's on your list at 38.

 

[jgarden47]

What rank did they give that one president who died like in his first month of office. Must suck to be ranked lower than a guy who was literally DOA as president.

Ahh, just checked, he's on your list at 38.

Harrison died on his 32nd day in office - what it says about Millard Fillmore (38), Franklin Pierce (40), Andrew Johnson (41), James Buchanan (42) and Warren Harding (43) is that the nation would have been better off if they had followed Harrison's example.

At least a corpse serving in the White House wouldn't have make as many mistakes and could leave with his reputation intact.

Businessmen make lousy presidents - in the case of Warren Harding, he actually had business experience before entering public office as a self-made newspaper publisher.

 

[Meathead]

Harrison died on his 32nd day in office - what it says about Millard Fillmore (38), Franklin Pierce (40), Andrew Johnson (41), James Buchanan (42) and Warren Harding (43) is that the nation would have been better off if they had followed Harrison's example.

At least a corpse serving in the White House wouldn't have make as many mistakes and could leave with his reputation intact.

Businessmen make lousy presidents - in the case of Warren Harding, he actually had business experience before entering public office as a self-made newspaper publisher.

If we count presidential greatness after 32 days in office, Obama might be the greatest prez ever. I mean he had already won the Nobel for peace after all.

 

[John Tucker]

Businessman don't make lousy Presidents, Presidents who can't lead and don't understand "America" make lousy Presidents. Obama wasn't a businessman, so what's his excuse?

Having a business background is a plus while running for President because you "should" display some higher levels of understanding of economics, which MOST members of our government lack. And in a time where the economic situation of this country is in trouble with $16 trillion national debts, over 8% unemployment, a skills gap, manufacturing issues, a shrinking middle class, we NEED someone with some basic level understanding of economics to push through the RIGHT policies to turn things around.

Can you believe we are $16 trillion in debt? There's absolutely no excuse for this f*cked up level of management.

 

[AdamT]

Businessman don't make lousy Presidents, Presidents who can't lead and don't understand "America" make lousy Presidents. Obama wasn't a businessman, so what's his excuse?

Having a business background is a plus while running for President because you "should" display some higher levels of understanding of economics, which MOST members of our government lack. And in a time where the economic situation of this country is in trouble with $16 trillion national debts, over 8% unemployment, a skills gap, manufacturing issues, a shrinking middle class, we NEED someone with some basic level understanding of economics to push through the RIGHT policies to turn things around.

Can you believe we are $16 trillion in debt? There's absolutely no excuse for this f*cked up level of management.

Your typical business exec is not an expert on macroeconomics ( to the extent there is such a thing). See AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc..

 

[305rob305]

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

Actually this is exactly what the U.S. needs. A president that will look for America's best economical well being when relating with the rest of the world. One that knows how to scam other countries so we can get back everything that countries around the world have scammed us. Oh and stop apologizing like the current president

 

[Born Free]

Your typical business exec is not an expert on macroeconomics ( to the extent there is such a thing). See AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc..

Romney is not your typical business exec, not only did he manage Bain Capital, but ran the Utah Olympics, and was Governor of MA. Compare that to a community organizer.

 

[Redress]

Romney is not your typical business exec, not only did he manage Bain Capital, but ran the Utah Olympics, and was Governor of MA. Compare that to a community organizer.

Romney is not running against just a community organizer. He is running against a comunity organizer with significant experience in the federal government, something Romney has zero experience in.

 

[Born Free]

Romney is not running against just a community organizer. He is running against a comunity organizer with significant experience in the federal government, something Romney has zero experience in.

Sorry but Obama never got past being a community organizer, his presidency is a failure. Obama is not a leader, why, because he don't know to lead. And all his policies are failures.

 

[Redress]

Sorry but Obama never got past being a community organizer, his presidency is a failure. Obama is not a leader, why, because he don't know to lead. And all his policies are failures.

And that is just pure spin based on opinion. Factually, Obama has more experience in the federal government than Romney, who has none.

 

[apdst]

Your typical business exec is not an expert on macroeconomics ( to the extent there is such a thing). See AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc..

We're all still waiting for someone to explain what Obama's excuse is, since businessmen make crappy presidents and Obama was never a busnessman.

 

[solletica]

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.

A candidate's sole allegiance is to his/her sponsors. End of story. Just like an employee works for a boss, a candidate works for a sponsor, because the sponsors are who pay him/her.

That being said, the real difference between liberals and conservatives is that the latter is simply too childish/naive to recognize that.

Yes, as hard as it is to believe, there are many conservatives who genuinely believe romney is going to lower the US debt and save tax dollars and not bail out banks at taxpayer expense at the first opportunity, even though he's sponsored exclusively by big banks. You just can't write a horror movie script more implausible than that, or maybe you could and just call the "The Night of the Living Brain Dead."

 

[apdst]

And that is just pure spin based on opinion. Factually, Obama has more experience in the federal government than [/b]Romney, who has none.[/b]

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.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Harding
Coolidge
Jefferson
Washington
Truman
Lincoln
Roosevelt (FDR)
Carter
Madison
Jackson

Go hunting around, I'm sure there are more that were businessmen before becoming President.
Yeah, terrible, lousy presidents.
Whoever decided to drum up this particular thought process didnt vet it very well.

 

[solletica]

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.

Saying obama is a failure is like saying water is wet. All major politicians are failures for the precise reason that none of them have an incentive to do anything else but meet the objectives of their sponsors.

That being said, Obama is guaranteed to be less of a failure than romney because romney is owned and operated primarily by Wall St. banks, obama is owned and operated mostly by software/internet firms (i. e. Google) and universities.

So, if it isn't already brutally obvious, it makes sense to choose obama over romney in a close election state because a government controlled more by Internet/software firms and universities is likely to be more benign that one controlled by big banks. Net neutrality ring a bell, hello?!

 

[Redress]

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.

Ummmm...here, let me help: Federal | Define Federal at Dictionary.com

 

[apdst]

Saying obama is a failure is like saying water is wet. All major politicians are failures for the precise reason that none of them have an incentive to do anything else but meet the objectives of their sponsors.

That being said, Obama is guaranteed to be less of a failure than romney because romney is owned and operated primarily by Wall St. banks, obama is owned and operated mostly by software/internet firms (i. e. Google) and universities.

So, if it isn't already brutally obvious, it makes sense to choose obama over romney in a close election state because a government controlled more by Internet/software firms and universities is likely to be more benign that one controlled by big banks. Net neutrality ring a bell, hello?!

Uh...yeah! The country is sooooooo much better off under Obama. He's won his spurs, by golly! :lamo

So, IOW, your argument to support Obama, is to claim that ALL politicians are failures? OMG!!!! :lamo