Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other.

[tigerbob]

If you only knew how ridiculous you sound.

Then it ought to be easy for a genius like yourself to refute it. Go ahead. Make my day.

Why don't you take an economics class? What exactly are your credentials when speaking on this topic? You took Intro to Macroeconomics at the county college up the street from your Mom's house? Do you even know the mechanism by which wealth travels through society? Do you think that when your wealth is a product of public investment in your human capital (i.e. if you go to public institutions and then capitalize on your (and our) investment) that you should not have to contribute back to future generations? The fact of the matter is if Obama engages in a lot of domestic investment, especially in education and health care (let's hope you weren't pro-war and don't have an issue with spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistian, etc. and not here), the US can actually increase its competitiveness and build its comparative advantage in the global economy and continue to be a world economic power. "Conservatives," or people who take for granted all things that have been given to them by the public sector, are completely ignorant of this. Concentrating wealth at the very top and being greedy over the "things you've worked for all by yourself" is a dangerous practice. The point is, why not understand economic forces and capitalize on this understanding to make the entire country richer, including BOTH those at the top and bottom via the "free market," which by the way, includes both private and public spending (see definition of Gross Domestic Product). Please learn some economics...

If you're going to bill yourself as an expert it's sensible not to make sweeping generalizations.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you only knew how ridiculous you sound.

Then it ought to be easy for a genius like yourself to refute it. Go ahead. Make my day.

Why don't you take an economics class? What exactly are your credentials when speaking on this topic? You took Intro to Macroeconomics at the county college up the street from your Mom's house? Do you even know the mechanism by which wealth travels through society? Do you think that when your wealth is a product of public investment in your human capital (i.e. if you go to public institutions and then capitalize on your (and our) investment) that you should not have to contribute back to future generations? The fact of the matter is if Obama engages in a lot of domestic investment, especially in education and health care (let's hope you weren't pro-war and don't have an issue with spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistian, etc. and not here), the US can actually increase its competitiveness and build its comparative advantage in the global economy and continue to be a world economic power. "Conservatives," or people who take for granted all things that have been given to them by the public sector, are completely ignorant of this. Concentrating wealth at the very top and being greedy over the "things you've worked for all by yourself" is a dangerous practice. The point is, why not understand economic forces and capitalize on this understanding to make the entire country richer, including BOTH those at the top and bottom via the "free market," which by the way, includes both private and public spending (see definition of Gross Domestic Product). Please learn some economics...

Do you have a fucking clue what you are yammering about? "Contribute to future generations"?? How about taxes on income earned? How about job creation? How about property taxes that go to support a bankrupt educational system?
"Investment in health care"?? WTF? Obama is not proposing to invest in health care. He is proposing to subsidize it and impose massive taxes to achieve that. That isn't an investment but a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive.
The U.S. will not increase its competitiveness with high corporate taxes, high income taxes, mandated funding for health care and a million other things this ignorant yard ape wants.

 

[Thinman]

Why do I get the impression that liberal progressives believe there is a finite amount of wealth and to get their share they must take it from someone else?

 

[Foxfyre]

Then it ought to be easy for a genius like yourself to refute it. Go ahead. Make my day.

Why don't you take an economics class? What exactly are your credentials when speaking on this topic? You took Intro to Macroeconomics at the county college up the street from your Mom's house? Do you even know the mechanism by which wealth travels through society? Do you think that when your wealth is a product of public investment in your human capital (i.e. if you go to public institutions and then capitalize on your (and our) investment) that you should not have to contribute back to future generations? The fact of the matter is if Obama engages in a lot of domestic investment, especially in education and health care (let's hope you weren't pro-war and don't have an issue with spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistian, etc. and not here), the US can actually increase its competitiveness and build its comparative advantage in the global economy and continue to be a world economic power. "Conservatives," or people who take for granted all things that have been given to them by the public sector, are completely ignorant of this. Concentrating wealth at the very top and being greedy over the "things you've worked for all by yourself" is a dangerous practice. The point is, why not understand economic forces and capitalize on this understanding to make the entire country richer, including BOTH those at the top and bottom via the "free market," which by the way, includes both private and public spending (see definition of Gross Domestic Product). Please learn some economics...

Do you have a fucking clue what you are yammering about? "Contribute to future generations"?? How about taxes on income earned? How about job creation? How about property taxes that go to support a bankrupt educational system?
"Investment in health care"?? WTF? Obama is not proposing to invest in health care. He is proposing to subsidize it and impose massive taxes to achieve that. That isn't an investment but a transfer of wealth from the productive to the non-productive.
The U.S. will not increase its competitiveness with high corporate taxes, high income taxes, mandated funding for health care and a million other things this ignorant yard ape wants.

A liberal will often describe taking property away from Citizen A and giving that property to Citizen B as 'investment'.

A conservative will often describe such activity as something akin to extortion.

As the government has nothing to give anybody that it doesn't take away from somebody else, I think the conservative got it right. That is more particularly true when you consider that the government ignores whether such activity is economical, effective, or productive. The only thing that seems to matter is that they can bribe enough people to keep voting them into office and thereby increase their wealth, prestige, and power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I probably shouldn't ask this because it implicitly lends credibility to the premise here (where none is due) but by any chance has anyone seen the methodology for this 'study'?

I have looked and so far haven't been able to find one, but considering the source, it is probably safe to assume that the graph is more likely accurate than not. What we don't know that would be helpful is what criteria was used to define 'private sector experience.' Many Obama supporters, for instance, counted his brief tenure as a law instructor and his equally brief time as a community organizer as private sector experience. As both were government funded, I don't define such experience as 'private sector', but that's just me.

America is a country not a corporation.

I saw an incomplete reference to the methodology somewhere in the comments linked to the link, but I couldn't make much sense out of it.

btw, did Reagan get elected on the merits of his experience in government, or his acting?

 

[Foxfyre]

I probably shouldn't ask this because it implicitly lends credibility to the premise here (where none is due) but by any chance has anyone seen the methodology for this 'study'?

I have looked and so far haven't been able to find one, but considering the source, it is probably safe to assume that the graph is more likely accurate than not. What we don't know that would be helpful is what criteria was used to define 'private sector experience.' Many Obama supporters, for instance, counted his brief tenure as a law instructor and his equally brief time as a community organizer as private sector experience. As both were government funded, I don't define such experience as 'private sector', but that's just me.

America is a country not a corporation.

I saw an incomplete reference to the methodology somewhere in the comments linked to the link, but I couldn't make much sense out of it.

btw, did Reagan get elected on the merits of his experience in government, or his acting?

Reagan, just like Obama, got elected on the strength of his oratory. Obama said all the right things that needed to be done. Reagan promoted a three-point program geared to make America more safe and more prosperous.

Obama reneged on just about everything he promised. It remains to be seen whether he will be re-elected.

Reagan delivered on everything he promised and won his re-election (49 out of 50 states) because he did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have looked and so far haven't been able to find one, but considering the source, it is probably safe to assume that the graph is more likely accurate than not. What we don't know that would be helpful is what criteria was used to define 'private sector experience.' Many Obama supporters, for instance, counted his brief tenure as a law instructor and his equally brief time as a community organizer as private sector experience. As both were government funded, I don't define such experience as 'private sector', but that's just me.

America is a country not a corporation.

I saw an incomplete reference to the methodology somewhere in the comments linked to the link, but I couldn't make much sense out of it.

btw, did Reagan get elected on the merits of his experience in government, or his acting?

Reagan, just like Obama, got elected on the strength of his oratory. Obama said all the right things that needed to be done. Reagan promoted a three-point program geared to make America more safe and more prosperous.

Obama reneged on just about everything he promised. It remains to be seen whether he will be re-elected.

Reagan delivered on everything he promised and won his re-election (49 out of 50 states) because he did.

The centerpiece of Reagan's promise(s) was to balance the budget. So, respectfully, you are full of baloney to make that preposterous claim.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, for all you who are insisting that the best government comes from private sector experience...

...what is/was Palin's experience? What was all that 'executive experience' of hers about?

 

[Polk]

I am curious, what are their policy stances. After all I do know Sec Chu wants to paint all roofs white to prevent global warming. This is NOT a vote of confidence in my book.

It sounds dumb, but has a huge impact.

Akbari et al. estimate that permanently retrofitting urban roofs and pavements in the tropical and temperate regions of the world with solar-reflective materials would offset 44 billion tonnes of emitted CO2, worth $1.1 trillion at $25/tonne.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-999-2008-020/CEC-999-2008-020.PDF

That's a reduction equal to taking 600,000,000 cars off the road for 18 years.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, I realize that's the point you were aiming at. But isn't one extreme (little or no public sector input) and bad as another (little or no public sector experience)?

No, it's not. Careers in government are going to bring in people who end up looking at all sides of the issue and balance the concerns. Bring in people from the private sector is going to result in the agencies issuing and overturning regulations, whichever is relevant toward the goal, to help out their corporate buddies.

So Obama has got the balance right, and every previous POTUS got it wrong.

I agree that private sector experience almost always brings both good and bad baggage with it, but your faith in the public sector is naive. It's almost as though you view working in the public sector as the only genuine measure of altruism - they work in the public sector so they must have the public's interests at heart and will reach a balanced position.

People surely don't go into public service for the payday.

 

[Thinman]

So, for all you who are insisting that the best government comes from private sector experience...

...what is/was Palin's experience? What was all that 'executive experience' of hers about?

Palin's an anomaly, starting at local city government and working her way up, and elected by the people numerous times. She ran against a member of her own party and won. Liberals think she's stupid so I guess all those Alaskans are stupid too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, for all you who are insisting that the best government comes from private sector experience...

...what is/was Palin's experience? What was all that 'executive experience' of hers about?

Palin's an anomaly, starting at local city government and working her way up, and elected by the people numerous times. She ran against a member of her own party and won. Liberals think she's stupid so I guess all those Alaskans are stupid too.

So I guess whoever did that study should eliminate all of those whose careers were mostly in government, working their way up?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I probably shouldn't ask this because it implicitly lends credibility to the premise here (where none is due) but by any chance has anyone seen the methodology for this 'study'?

I have looked and so far haven't been able to find one, but considering the source, it is probably safe to assume that the graph is more likely accurate than not. What we don't know that would be helpful is what criteria was used to define 'private sector experience.' Many Obama supporters, for instance, counted his brief tenure as a law instructor and his equally brief time as a community organizer as private sector experience. As both were government funded, I don't define such experience as 'private sector', but that's just me.

America is a country not a corporation.

I saw an incomplete reference to the methodology somewhere in the comments linked to the link, but I couldn't make much sense out of it.

btw, did Reagan get elected on the merits of his experience in government, or his acting?

I should have highlighted that, for the benefit of all those who worship Reagan.

 

[Thinman]

So, for all you who are insisting that the best government comes from private sector experience...

...what is/was Palin's experience? What was all that 'executive experience' of hers about?

Palin's an anomaly, starting at local city government and working her way up, and elected by the people numerous times. She ran against a member of her own party and won. Liberals think she's stupid so I guess all those Alaskans are stupid too.

So I guess whoever did that study should eliminate all of those whose careers were mostly in government, working their way up?

"...elected by the people..."

 

[tigerbob]

So, for all you who are insisting that the best government comes from private sector experience...

...what is/was Palin's experience? What was all that 'executive experience' of hers about?

Just to be clear, some of us are insisting that the best government comes from having a good balance of experience, both public and private sector, and therefore a broader understanding of the ramifications of policy options.

 

[tigerbob]

No, it's not. Careers in government are going to bring in people who end up looking at all sides of the issue and balance the concerns. Bring in people from the private sector is going to result in the agencies issuing and overturning regulations, whichever is relevant toward the goal, to help out their corporate buddies.

So Obama has got the balance right, and every previous POTUS got it wrong.

I agree that private sector experience almost always brings both good and bad baggage with it, but your faith in the public sector is naive. It's almost as though you view working in the public sector as the only genuine measure of altruism - they work in the public sector so they must have the public's interests at heart and will reach a balanced position.

People surely don't go into public service for the payday.

So they do it because they're selfless?

 

[Polk]

So Obama has got the balance right, and every previous POTUS got it wrong.

I agree that private sector experience almost always brings both good and bad baggage with it, but your faith in the public sector is naive. It's almost as though you view working in the public sector as the only genuine measure of altruism - they work in the public sector so they must have the public's interests at heart and will reach a balanced position.

People surely don't go into public service for the payday.

So they do it because they're selfless?

Some do. Some do because they're more interested in job security than a huge payday. The point is, they're not like these corporate raiders who will sometimes venture over to the public sector to help their pals make a big payday.

 

[rightwinger]

Different doesn't always mean right or wrong.....just different.

Some of the administrations listed have been very successful others have been duds. It doesn't appear hiring from the private sector guarantees either

 

[Article 15]

Just remember, if you so much as oppose Obama for any reason, you're a racist.

Oh yes....the wingnut myth

One serving of drooling lefty wing-nut coming right up!

“We think all of it is!” exclaimed Gwen Dawkins, a Democratic activist from Michigan and retired state employee when asked to what degree the fervent opposition to Obama was driven by his skin color.

In her own words, all of the opposition to Obama is driven merely by his skin color, making opposition to Obama racist.

You should give up while you're still behind, right-oh shit I'm a lefty wing-nut - winger.

You pull one quote from a "Democratic activist" and think you just proved your assertion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh yes....the wingnut myth

One serving of drooling lefty wing-nut coming right up!

“We think all of it is!” exclaimed Gwen Dawkins, a Democratic activist from Michigan and retired state employee when asked to what degree the fervent opposition to Obama was driven by his skin color.

In her own words, all of the opposition to Obama is driven merely by his skin color, making opposition to Obama racist.

You should give up while you're still behind, right-oh shit I'm a lefty wing-nut - winger.

You pull one quote from a "Democratic activist" and think you just proved your assertion?

What's funnier is, yes, in all likelihood he DOES think it proves his assertion.