Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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..."
Unfortunately people working in the private sector are not necessarily experts at dealing with the economy--for example, take a look at the most recent collapse of the economy. If you are so well-versed in the economy, you would also know that all agents in the economy are utility maximizing, or in layman's terms for those who don't know much about the economy, profit maximizing. That means that "business people" are more likely to engage in short-sighted tactics that are not beneficial to society but very beneficial to themselves. Obama takes a more objective and empirical approach to his administration, which is excellent after eight years of knee-jerk reactions from the Bush Administration. Please do not say ignorant things in the future without understanding the implications of your position.
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...
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.
Reagan never ignored the deficit -- he just had more important things on his mind. As he said in 1981, "I did not come here to balance the budget -- not at the expense of my tax-cutting program and my defense program."[xxiv] Still, every budget he submitted to Congress outlined spending reductions which would have reduced the cumulative deficit during the 1980s by several hundred billion dollars. But Congress nullified this possibility with a succession of "continuing resolutions" that enabled the government to keep operating and keep spending at the same level.
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation RemembersRonald Reagan came to the presidency with several important political advantages. He had an express mandate from the American people who knew what he intended to do -- cut income taxes from top to bottom, reduce the size of the federal government for the first time since the New Deal, and make the U.S. military Number One in the world. To help him in this revolutionary task, he had a Republican Senate and a feisty Republican minority in the House determined to avoid legislative gridlock.
Actually, the title should say "Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other."
Does Obama Administration Have Less Business Experience?
Obama and his cabinet have never created wealth. They have only spent other people's wealth. Therfore they have no idea how wealth is created. It is a mindset. In their mind wealth is always out there among "the rich." It isn't earned. It isn't worked for. It just falls from the sky. And therfore it doesn't really belong to the people who earned it but to "society", i.e. the government.
We see this in their policies and pronouncements every day. Obama's "jobs summit" is the latest evidence. Everyone knows how you create jobs, except his administration apparently.
Bush and the Republicans NEVER created wealth. They simply "transferred" it from the middle class to the wealthiest 3% of the nation through tax cuts for the rich and no bid contracts. This is VERY RECENT HISTORY. How come Republicans don't know that?
BOOSHHHH! IT"S BOOOSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A year into the administration this talking point is getting a little shopworn. I think you need a new gig here.
Bush and the Republicans NEVER created wealth. They simply "transferred" it from the middle class to the wealthiest 3% of the nation through tax cuts for the rich and no bid contracts. This is VERY RECENT HISTORY. How come Republicans don't know that?
BOOSHHHH! IT"S BOOOSSHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A year into the administration this talking point is getting a little shopworn. I think you need a new gig here.
Less than a year to undo all the damage it took Republicans 8 years to create? Seriously?
The Republican party has become the "party of the fools".
It's hilarious listening to Republicans trying to come up with fixes for everything they did to ruin this country. So far, all of their suggestions have basically been, "do nothing".
But there have been a few suggestions, it's just that they are so laughable.
It doesn't matter. Obama was a Community Organizer. That makes him qualified to do anything, even brain surgery.
Actually, the title should say "Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other."
Does Obama Administration Have Less Business Experience?
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.
I think your history is a bit selective. Reagan did say that the budget could be balanced within three years IF the size of government and spending was reduced. That did not happen despite his best efforts because Congress would not allow it. He did NOT run on a balanced budget as a cornerstone of his campaign however.
Reagan never ignored the deficit -- he just had more important things on his mind. As he said in 1981, "I did not come here to balance the budget -- not at the expense of my tax-cutting program and my defense program."[xxiv] Still, every budget he submitted to Congress outlined spending reductions which would have reduced the cumulative deficit during the 1980s by several hundred billion dollars. But Congress nullified this possibility with a succession of "continuing resolutions" that enabled the government to keep operating and keep spending at the same level.
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation RemembersRonald Reagan came to the presidency with several important political advantages. He had an express mandate from the American people who knew what he intended to do -- cut income taxes from top to bottom, reduce the size of the federal government for the first time since the New Deal, and make the U.S. military Number One in the world. To help him in this revolutionary task, he had a Republican Senate and a feisty Republican minority in the House determined to avoid legislative gridlock.
Admittedly he was not successful in reducing the size of the Federal government, but he sure as heck tried throughout his presidency and left office as committed to that as when he came in. And nobody, including the large majority of Americans who voted for him, ever doubted his commitment to that principle. In a way he succeeded in that his economic policies were so successful, that the percentage of the size of government compared to the GDP did shrink while he was in office. Obama sure as heck won't be able to say that.
So I guess we need more Dick Cheneys to run foreign policy and more guys from Wall St. to handle fiscal policy.
Cheney seemed to be on top of things quite nicely unlike this bunch of neophytes who can't even get their Afghanistan strategy straight AFTER 7 FRICKEN MONTHS!!!!!
The centerpiece of Reagan's promise(s) was to balance the budget. So, respectfully, you are full of baloney to make that preposterous claim.
I think your history is a bit selective. Reagan did say that the budget could be balanced within three years IF the size of government and spending was reduced. That did not happen despite his best efforts because Congress would not allow it. He did NOT run on a balanced budget as a cornerstone of his campaign however.
Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation RemembersRonald Reagan came to the presidency with several important political advantages. He had an express mandate from the American people who knew what he intended to do -- cut income taxes from top to bottom, reduce the size of the federal government for the first time since the New Deal, and make the U.S. military Number One in the world. To help him in this revolutionary task, he had a Republican Senate and a feisty Republican minority in the House determined to avoid legislative gridlock.
Admittedly he was not successful in reducing the size of the Federal government, but he sure as heck tried throughout his presidency and left office as committed to that as when he came in. And nobody, including the large majority of Americans who voted for him, ever doubted his commitment to that principle. In a way he succeeded in that his economic policies were so successful, that the percentage of the size of government compared to the GDP did shrink while he was in office. Obama sure as heck won't be able to say that.
My history is that you claimed Reagan fulfilled every one of his promises and since he promised to balance the budget and never did so, in fact did worse than any peacetime president to precede him,
makes you full of shit.
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.
it doesn't matter. Obama was a community organizer. That makes him qualified to do anything, even brain surgery.
actually, the title should say "obama administration has less private sector experience than any other."
does obama administration have less business experience?
yea...and bush only owned a last place baseball team
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
The Republican party has become the "party of the fools".
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.
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.
He's stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. He can be president!It doesn't matter. Obama was a Community Organizer. That makes him qualified to do anything, even brain surgery.
Actually, the title should say "Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other."
Does Obama Administration Have Less Business Experience?
