Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other.

[saveliberty]

The reason Obama is so great is precisely because he hasn't been corrupted by the private sector, and he understands that simple economic theories do not explain the best way to govern the masses. The private sector is all about what people want (greed). The public sector is all about what people need (compassion).

Please, not while I'm eating. Geez, there went a perfectly good lunch. Got a spare waste basket liner?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ummmm....have you heard about TARP? Did you hear about the BILLIONS of dollars American BUSINESS had to borrow from our Federal Government to keep from going bankrupt? Please don't sing the praises of the private sector and damn the government, when it was the government to had to bail out said private sector.

Please show me some money, any money, that the Federal government has produced. Please show me a single dollar that government has spent, invested, provided, squandered, or loaned that a) was not taken from somebody else and/or b) that did not reduce the value of the earnings, savings, investments of the American people.

And then explain again how the government creates wealth and jobs.

I hate it when people answer my questions with more questions, but just for clarification purposes, please riddle me this: Are you saying that wealth and jobs would NOT have been lost had the Federal Government not loaned money to AIG, GM, Chrylser, BoA, etc?

I didn't ask you any questions. I asked you to support your opinions/statements.

Yes jobs would have been lost had the government not bailed out mismanaged and failed companies. But it is my firm opinion that we would not have lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we have lost every month since then BECAUSE the government has tried to spend us back into prosperity. Had the government chosen to allow mismanaged businesses to fail and had it provided tax breaks, relaxed unnecessary regulation, and provided other incentives for the private sector to prosper, I believe we would be out of the recession now and showing job growth every month rather than hundreds of thousands of new employment claims.

 

[typicalLefty]

Please show me some money, any money, that the Federal government has produced. Please show me a single dollar that government has spent, invested, provided, squandered, or loaned that a) was not taken from somebody else and/or b) that did not reduce the value of the earnings, savings, investments of the American people.

And then explain again how the government creates wealth and jobs.

I hate it when people answer my questions with more questions, but just for clarification purposes, please riddle me this: Are you saying that wealth and jobs would NOT have been lost had the Federal Government not loaned money to AIG, GM, Chrylser, BoA, etc?

I didn't ask you any questions. I asked you to support your opinions/statements.

Yes jobs would have been lost had the government not bailed out mismanaged and failed companies. But it is my firm opinion that we would not have lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we have lost every month since then BECAUSE the government has tried to spend us back into prosperity. Had the government chosen to allow mismanaged businesses to fail and had it provided tax breaks, relaxed unnecessary regulation, and provided other incentives for the private sector to prosper, I believe we would be out of the recession now and showing job growth every month rather than hundreds of thousands of new employment claims.

Someone's been hittin the bottle hard.....

 

[Big Fitz]

OK, OK. I'll play. So?

Does the phrase "unqualified" ring any bells? Not only is P-BO unqualified, his advisers are unqualified, and his czars are unqualified. They have no idea how to fix the economy because they don't recognize what makes business work because they've never dealt with it. They only agitate, and sue, and petition, and protest, and talk, and loot, and steal, and preach, and teach, and none of them can do.

That is why it's important. Notice also, all but one of the bottom 5 are democrats, and the one Republican was a known progressive (TR). And only FDR and Wilson had a decent level of Private Sector cabinet members, and even they weren't in the top 5.

So, who do you give credit to when our economy was booming under Clinton? I am no fan of Clinton, mind you, just asking...

Honestly? Looting the military budget and then creating tech and housing bubbles. Until he changed the tax rates he was also following Reagan and after 1994, Gingrich and co. too.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, the title should say "Obama Administration Has Less Private Sector Experience than Any Other."

Does Obama Administration Have Less Business Experience?

In theory it should mean less private sector influence in our govt. Not a bad thing in my opinion.

Perhaps enron and big oil will not be deciding our energy poilicy, for instance.

 

[VaYank5150]

Please show me some money, any money, that the Federal government has produced. Please show me a single dollar that government has spent, invested, provided, squandered, or loaned that a) was not taken from somebody else and/or b) that did not reduce the value of the earnings, savings, investments of the American people.

And then explain again how the government creates wealth and jobs.

I hate it when people answer my questions with more questions, but just for clarification purposes, please riddle me this: Are you saying that wealth and jobs would NOT have been lost had the Federal Government not loaned money to AIG, GM, Chrylser, BoA, etc?

I didn't ask you any questions. I asked you to support your opinions/statements.

Yes jobs would have been lost had the government not bailed out mismanaged and failed companies. But it is my firm opinion that we would not have lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we have lost every month since then BECAUSE the government has tried to spend us back into prosperity. Had the government chosen to allow mismanaged businesses to fail and had it provided tax breaks, relaxed unnecessary regulation, and provided other incentives for the private sector to prosper, I believe we would be out of the recession now and showing job growth every month rather than hundreds of thousands of new employment claims.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the stimulus package itself, has done little, if anything to add to our gained jobs tally, please explain how this expenditure has CAUSED the private sector to shed jobs. Being in the private sector myself, I know what has and has not caused our business to decline 39% over the past year. The stimulus, and additional Federal spending had absolutely nothing to do with it. The lack of available capital and borrowing power, caused by the greedy banks and insurance companies caused this. Not the Fed.

 

[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....

Blindly follow? I'm not a Republican. I even know how to read and finger count.

you know how to read?.....look at your post than look at mine,i bolded a part of mine so you can follow.....and then look in the mirror....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The reason Obama is so great is precisely because he hasn't been corrupted by the private sector, and he understands that simple economic theories do not explain the best way to govern the masses. The private sector is all about what people want (greed). The public sector is all about what people need (compassion).

......oh thats gotta be a statement to ponder......if Obama is as great as you think he is,he would have the Moderate Dems and Repubs and Liberal Repubs and Conservative Dems basically behind him on his agenda....do you see that?....i sure as hell dont.....a GREAT leader UNITES people,from many backgrounds,not just those from a certain section of society.....

 

[Foxfyre]

I hate it when people answer my questions with more questions, but just for clarification purposes, please riddle me this: Are you saying that wealth and jobs would NOT have been lost had the Federal Government not loaned money to AIG, GM, Chrylser, BoA, etc?

I didn't ask you any questions. I asked you to support your opinions/statements.

Yes jobs would have been lost had the government not bailed out mismanaged and failed companies. But it is my firm opinion that we would not have lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we have lost every month since then BECAUSE the government has tried to spend us back into prosperity. Had the government chosen to allow mismanaged businesses to fail and had it provided tax breaks, relaxed unnecessary regulation, and provided other incentives for the private sector to prosper, I believe we would be out of the recession now and showing job growth every month rather than hundreds of thousands of new employment claims.

Someone's been hittin the bottle hard.....

So sober up already and maybe you won't confuse a statement with a question.

 

[Foxfyre]

I hate it when people answer my questions with more questions, but just for clarification purposes, please riddle me this: Are you saying that wealth and jobs would NOT have been lost had the Federal Government not loaned money to AIG, GM, Chrylser, BoA, etc?

I didn't ask you any questions. I asked you to support your opinions/statements.

Yes jobs would have been lost had the government not bailed out mismanaged and failed companies. But it is my firm opinion that we would not have lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs that we have lost every month since then BECAUSE the government has tried to spend us back into prosperity. Had the government chosen to allow mismanaged businesses to fail and had it provided tax breaks, relaxed unnecessary regulation, and provided other incentives for the private sector to prosper, I believe we would be out of the recession now and showing job growth every month rather than hundreds of thousands of new employment claims.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the stimulus package itself, has done little, if anything to add to our gained jobs tally, please explain how this expenditure has CAUSED the private sector to shed jobs. Being in the private sector myself, I know what has and has not caused our business to decline 39% over the past year. The stimulus, and additional Federal spending had absolutely nothing to do with it. The lack of available capital and borrowing power, caused by the greedy banks and insurance companies caused this. Not the Fed.

Whenever you take that much money out of the private sector and infuse it into the economy without having any form of production or real wealth behind it, you create uncertainty re taxes, inflation, and GDP that makes it almost impossible for the private sector to properly calculate risk and plan ahead. You create deep uncertainty in the world financial sector that makes it far more difficult for our private sector to negotiate profitable deals in a global market. You devalue the dollar to the point that the entire global financial market looks elsewhere to invest their cash reserves. And you have done absolutely nothing to free up credit and provide any kind of incentives for the private sector to return to doing what they do best which is create jobs, prosperity, and wealth, none of which the government is effective in doing.

Also

“A recent Associated Press story reports: ‘Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over ‘Shovel-ready’ Projects.’ A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services.” Or, as another AP report put it, “Stimulus Aid Favors Welfare, Not Work, Programs.”

The stimulus package also repealed welfare reform, as Slate's Mickey Kaus and the Heritage Foundation have noted. Obama ran campaign ads claiming to support welfare reform, even though he had actually fought against meaningful welfare reform as an Illinois legislator. The stimulus package largely repeals the welfare-reform law passed by Congress in 1996.

Obama claimed the stimulus package was needed to prevent the economy from suffering from “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that the stimulus package would shrink the economy “in the long run.” The stimulus package has since destroyed thousands of jobs in America’s export sector, and subsidized countless examples of government waste and corruption.

Recently, Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, who uncovered millions of dollars of waste and fraud in the AmeriCorps program, including by a prominent Obama supporter, endangering the Obama supporter’s ability to administer federal stimulus spending in Sacramento.

The stimulus package also imposes on states racial set-aside requirements and prevailing-wage requirements, which increase the cost to taxpayers of government contracts. The prevailing-wage requirements will inflate the cost of state construction and transportation projects by at least $17 billion. Racial set-asides also are very costly to taxpayers.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-S...nts-With-Welfare-Out-of-Political-Correctness

 

[saveliberty]

The stimulus was supposed to clean the books of bad loans for banks. Many of those loans are still a problem. The banks were then going to be in a better position to make loans. Those loans would drive business expansion (job growth).

Other stimulus money was going to make underwater mortgages affordable for the home owners. That has been an abysmal failure too. Keeping GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy? Side effects of the Cash for Clunkers Porgram. Public sector folks thought all of this was going to work. Many of us in the private sector were never under that illusion. Reminds me of the blind man describing an elephant.

 

[tigerbob]

The reason Obama is so great is precisely because he hasn't been corrupted by the private sector, and he understands that simple economic theories do not explain the best way to govern the masses. The private sector is all about what people want (greed). The public sector is all about what people need (compassion).

And the one can't exist without the other.

And your description of the private sector is crap, BTW.

 

[saveliberty]

The reason Obama is so great is precisely because he hasn't been corrupted by the private sector, and he understands that simple economic theories do not explain the best way to govern the masses. The private sector is all about what people want (greed). The public sector is all about what people need (compassion).

"The reason Obama is so great is precisely because he hasn't been corrupted by the private sector". Maybe so, he is corrupted by the public sector however.

"...he understands that simple economic theories do not explain the best way to govern the masses." Funny how economics explain economic issues and situations, while governing is explained by our Constitution.

"The private sector is all about what people want (greed)." It is about supplying the demand, however not all goods and services are viewed as wants. Food is usually a need for example.

"The public sector is all about what people need (compassion)." Well get out your fuzzy bunny slippers. People's needs vary, you are attempting a one-size-fits-all and the size it what YOU want it to be. Unless someone violates my rights, I don't NEED government in most daily situations. Need some music with that whine and cheesiness?

 

[Polk]

That freshman class of 1994 included 30-40 conservative Democrats too, and included a lot of idealists and visionaries and they were mostly business people, educators, scientists, medical professionals, etc. rather than mostly lawyers and career politicians. And they mostly had their heads on straight.

What the hell are you babbling out? The 1994 election didn't bring in a wave of conservative Democrats along with the Republicans. It was conservative Democrats who took most of the beating. In my state alone, all three Democrats that lost were toward the conservative end of the caucus.

Clinton to his credit, once he saw how popular their policies and initiatives were, wanted to be loved more than anything else--Clinton was and is not a man of strong conviction about much of anything--and he chose to go along and did not throw up a lot of roadblocks to the process. The result was a great economy.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Republicans weren't able to actually move that much of the Contract with America. Let's take a look at some of the big ones

- Require a balanced budget unless a 3/5ths vote otherwise: Died in the Senate
- Line item veto: Passed (but then again, it's something presidents have wanted for years)
- Changes to welfare: Passed, but only after Clinton vetoed the original bill and forced them to draw up something more moderate
- Institute "loser pays": Vetoed
- Term limits: Never even passed the House

 

[Polk]

Unfortunately, once most of that Republican freshman class left Congress to go on to other things, the majority (Democrat and GOP) that was left gradually reverted to the old self-serving politics as usual with the result that we see today.

To hear you tell it, these great and noble warriors left Washington as quickly as they came in, moving back to the private life. Of course, that's not what really happened. There 69 freshman Republican members of the House that took their seats in 1994.

Of those, 13 are still in the House.
22 lost a race for reelection.
13 left the House to run for the Senate (six were successful, seven were not).
Five to run for governor (three losses, two wins).
One lost his seat due to redistricting and then ran for president as a third party candidate.
Two died in office.
Three either resigned due to scandal or withdraw from their reelection campaigns because of it.
One left the House to take a Cabinet post.

For those keeping out, that means 60 of the 69 are still in politics. And of the nine that left on their own, two of them took up the noble profession of lobbying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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.

"The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely and, in time, completely."

Reagan SOTU 1982

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

"The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely and, in time, completely."

Reagan SOTU 1982

The policies he had in place very likely would have done that. But there is no way to know whether he was accurate about that as the policies in place were never fully implemented nor followed by Congress. Nevertheless, what Reagan policies were implemented, the defict as a percentage of the GDP was steadily decreasing and it is reasonable to assume that if that trend had continued, the deficit would have eventually been reduced to zero. (I have already posted a link to a reliable source testifying to that.) So what else do you have?

 

[mediaspin]

And they demonstrate this each and every day!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

"The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely and, in time, completely."

Reagan SOTU 1982

The policies he had in place very likely would have done that. But there is no way to know whether he was accurate about that as the policies in place were never fully implemented nor followed by Congress. Nevertheless, what Reagan policies were implemented, the defict as a percentage of the GDP was steadily decreasing and it is reasonable to assume that if that trend had continued, the deficit would have eventually been reduced to zero. (I have already posted a link to a reliable source testifying to that.) So what else do you have?

I just have to prove you wrong, I don't have to get you to admit it, so cut the obfuscation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As is usually the case, this kind of rightwing nonsense gets comprehensively debunked sooner or later:

Obama’s well-qualified cabinet: Conservatives hoaxed by “J. P. Morgan” chart that verifies prejudices « Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub

And the wingnuts wonder why no one with a brain takes their word for anything.