Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other.

[NYcarbineer]

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..."

OK, so Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services was

ELECTED to the Kansas House of Representatives 1986 to 1994
ELECTED Kansas State Insurance Commission
ELECTED Kansas Governor 2002
RE-ELECTED Kansas Governor 2006

That would make her how qualified, by your 'Palin' standard, to serve on the Cabinet?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Jobs are number one on the economy problem list today. For me, I'd focus on creating them by having people experienced in crating jobs on my cabinet. Obama's approach is evident by looking at the backgrounds of his cabunet. Hightly educated with a law degree and politcal experience. You can take your short term view by business bull and stuff it. NO ONE is MORE short term oriented than a politican. House Representatives have an election every two years. Presidents in four with lengthy campaigns. Take your own advice dipwad.

 

[saveliberty]

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...

Better have a big bat and a high batting average to come out swinging like that. There are at least four people more qualified than you to discuss economics here. The public sector exists because private industry is sucessful enough to provide EVERYTHING the public sector needs. Look up parasite. Public spending is only sustainable with a healthy private sector.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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 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.

Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

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.

 

[Polk]

Ah, so he says one thing and does another, and that's the fault of Congress. See, it's really easy to be all about "personal responsibility" when every time you don't do what you say, you blame it on someone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Is this why we had Enron write Bush's policy on energy?

I guess having practical experience does help

 

[xsited1]

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?

 

[rdean]

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.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Actually "do nothing" would have been preferable to Obama's approach: Throw massive amounts of money and hope waste and fraud will restore confidence.
Yeah, great program there, chief.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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.

Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

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.

 

[Dr Grump]

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 only thing he was on top of was Bush's cock....

as for seven months, well Bush had five years and fucked it up all beyond expectations. why are your expectations of somebody you think is so incompetent so much higher of somebody you no doubt believe was competent...just wondering....

 

[Foxfyre]

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 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.

Ronald Reagan: The Heritage Foundation Remembers

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.

Show me that he promised to balance the budget. I gave you a source that was pretty clear that he didn't promise to do that. I can't imagine anybody who was governor of California and therefore one of the world's largest economies would make such a promise without serious qualifications given that neither a governor nor a president has any power whatsoever to balance anything but their own expense account. Reagan did not waver from eight years of effort in doing what he did promise to do.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

well i can only comment about the PO on this point....and all i can say is....if you say so...

 

[xsited1]

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

buuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

good point RW....it seems it depends on the economic climate at the time....Clinton was president at a good time with the Dot com explosion....people were making some money and lots of jobs created....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Republican party has become the "party of the fools".

and if you blindly follow the other chumps your not a fool?.....want to see what a fool looks like rdean?.....look in your mirror....

 

[tigerbob]

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.

I think there's some truth to that, but it wasn't really what I was driving at. Your earlier post said...

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.

My point was that not all people who work in the public sector do so purely because they want to spend their careers being visibly even handed. Everyone has an agenda, whether they admit to it or not, and having 20 years' public sector experience does not necessarily give one the ability to balance all the concerns.

The U.S. economy is, after all, built on capitalism, and the ability to balance the needs of business with the needs of society in general is a difficult talent to acquire.

That said, relying purely on the private sector for advice is dangerous as well. There are undoubtedly those who, after 20 years in one corporation or another, take a role in government and have sympathy for the views and needs of their former business partners. Indeed they may still have a financial interest in their former companies, whether that interest is evident (stock holding or stock options) or not. Does that make them any different from, say, a politician who feels pressure to grant a favor or two to the individuals or lobbyists to helped get him elected in the first place? I'd argue not.

In short, my concern is that writing off all private sector experience (as you appear to be doing - feel free to correct me if I'm misconstruing) because one has concerns about payback is as narrow a view as endorsing all public sector advisors as well-balanced, even-handed and competent to propose policy in isolation across the entire economic and political landscape.

If you make decisions about who to hire based solely on stereotypes then you shouldn't be running a lemonade stand, much less a government. Is Obama doing it that way? Who knows. But your comment about "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" appears to indicate that you have some sympathy for that general angle on hiring policy.

It's early in the morning and I've fumbled this a bit, but I think my point is relatively clear, even if you don't agree with it.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

He's stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. He can be president!