• 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 (1 Viewer)

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

You mentioned firms involved in a global financial crisis, not relevant as the entire COUNTRY was melting as a result of the decisions of a few in the housing sector.

And Obama isn't an expert on macroeconomics NOW or in 2008. Romney has real experience at both the micro level and the macro level, remember Romney ran a state and Obama barely was in the Senate two years. Romney also ran the Olympics, Romney helped build Staples, Romney knows business and most importantly, his STANCES on the issues are right in line with the direction this country needs to go to get our economic growth rate back to normal.
 
apdst said:
Are you seriously trying to say that a state governer has NO experience in dealing with the Federal government? Really?!? Surely, you're not!!
Click to expand...

A governor deals with the federal government in lobbying for things for their state. Any lobbyist has as much experience with the federal government or more.
 
Redress said:
A governor deals with the federal government in lobbying for things for their state. Any lobbyist has as much experience with the federal government or more.
Click to expand...

IOW, you don't have a clue what state governers do. Yes?
 
Redress said:
And that is just pure spin based on opinion. Factually, Obama has more experience in the federal government than Romney, who has none.
Click to expand...

Well if you want to credit Obama with raising our national debt by almost 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, then I agree he is experienced at borrowing and spending. Then you have to weigh in we have nothing to show for it, except loading our grandchildren with debt that they have to pay back. Yes I agree that Obama is fantastic at failed policies.
 
apdst said:
IOW, you don't have a clue what state governers do. Yes?
Click to expand...

Yes, they are the executive at the top of the state(not federal) government. What seems to be consfusing you is that the state governm ent is not the federal government. That is why I linked you a definition of the word "federal".
 
Born Free said:
Well if you want to credit Obama with raising our national debt by almost 6 trillion in just 4 yrs, then I agree he is experienced at borrowing and spending. Then you have to weigh in we have nothing to show for it, except loading our grandchildren with debt that they have to pay back. Yes I agree that Obama is fantastic at failed policies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
solletica said:
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?!
Click to expand...

Obama failure is exactly like saying water is wet. Because he is a total failure. Maybe you like the direction of this country, and would like to keep Obama in office.
 
Redress said:
Yes, they are the executive at the top of the state(not federal) government. What seems to be consfusing you is that the state governm ent is not the federal government. That is why I linked you a definition of the word "federal".
Click to expand...

What seems to be confusing you, is that state executives deal with the Feds everyday. I would expect a governer to know more about the Feds operate than the president does. Not a far stretch, when you consider who the current president is.
 
Born Free said:
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.
Click to expand...

But Bain is about microeconomics - not macro. Ditto Olympics. Governor of MA -- well, there's a reason Romney doesn't want to talk about that.
 
apdst said:
What seems to be confusing you, is that state executives deal with the Feds everyday. I would expect a governer to know more about the Feds operate than the president does. Not a far stretch, when you consider who the current president is.
Click to expand...

Far stretch would be ridiculously generous to your hypothesis.
 
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...

Carter was a former Navy Nuke engineering officer, a peanut farmer, and a governor, not just a business man.
GBush was a ne'er do well whose political aspirations were supported by daddy, a failed businessman, also supported by daddy....
Hoover? who knows....
but the first 2 weren't really, at any time, to be considered real business men....or only businessmen.
 
AdamT said:
But Bain is about microeconomics - not macro. Ditto Olympics. Governor of MA -- well, there's a reason Romney doesn't want to talk about that.
Click to expand...

And what does Obama have to brag about?
 
apdst said:
What seems to be confusing you, is that state executives deal with the Feds everyday. I would expect a governer to know more about the Feds operate than the president does. Not a far stretch, when you consider who the current president is.
Click to expand...

Actually the governors probably do not deal with the federal government every day. Their underlings do, and mostly in ways the governor never sees or knows about. The governor deals with the federal government inconstantly. Obama on the other hand has dealt with and been a part of the federal government every day since taking office. he has more experience in and with the federal government. There is simply no way to spin it elsewise.
 
I don't have a problem with a business person being President, so long as they don't try and run the country like a business.
 
Redress said:
Actually the governors probably do not deal with the federal government every day. Their underlings do, and mostly in ways the governor never sees or knows about. The governor deals with the federal government inconstantly. Obama on the other hand has dealt with and been a part of the federal government every day since taking office. he has more experience in and with the federal government. There is simply no way to spin it elsewise.
Click to expand...

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.
 
UtahBill said:
Carter was a former Navy Nuke engineering officer, a peanut farmer, and a governor, not just a business man.
GBush was a ne'er do well whose political aspirations were supported by daddy, a failed businessman, also supported by daddy....
Hoover? who knows....
but the first 2 weren't really, at any time, to be considered real business men....or only businessmen.
Click to expand...

Carter was a successful farmer for about 20 years, which is longer than Romney spent working at Bain. Likewise, Bush worked in various (mostly failed) businesses for about 30 years before he won any elected office.
 
OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being a governor and being president are not analogous. They have similarities, but the differences are greater than those similarities and extend beyond just scope. One easy example would be foreign policy.
 
AdamT said:
Carter was a successful farmer for about 20 years, which is longer than Romney spent working at Bain. Likewise, Bush worked in various (mostly failed) businesses for about 30 years before he won any elected office.
Click to expand...

Again... Romney was with Bain for 24 yrs, and Boston Consulting for 2... that's 26 years in business... the very business of starting up businesses and reorganizing them to be more fiscally sound, and profitable...

Carter was a farmer... Farming isn't business... Which is why when the BLS lists statistics, it's all non-farm income... because farming is and has been heavily subsidized for decades...
 
Redress said:
Being a governor and being president are not analogous. They have similarities, but the differences are greater than those similarities and extend beyond just scope. One easy example would be foreign policy.
Click to expand...

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...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Utility Man said:
I don't have a problem with a business person being President, so long as they don't try and run the country like a business.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what The Rominee claims he will do.
 
Redress said:
Being a governor and being president are not analogous. They have similarities, but the differences are greater than those similarities and extend beyond just scope. One easy example would be foreign policy.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom