Does having business experience dictate whether you will be a good POTUS?

[trenchfoot]

Their stellar business acumen really helped Bush and Cheney run the country right down into the dirt. Big Time Businessmen Bush and Cheney even dug a really deep hole in the ground via cutting taxes for the rich while starting two very expensive wars to allow the nation to go down in the dirt even deeper still.

Who the hell starts wars AND simultaneously cut taxes for the rich that were needed to finance those excellent adventures? That's some really smart business struhtegerizing right there fer shure ain't it though?

Halliburton actually won those wars because us taxpayers kept shoveling billions of $$$$ into their coffers like there was no tomorrow.

Sometimes I feel a little fanciful and really wish our gov't was run like a business where the people of the nation are the Board of Directors instead of the very wealthy business owners who've bought off our politicians at wholesale prices.

 

[John Connor]

Do you? Because it seems like you don't.

Jesus man. Learn about the Treasury. Learn about tax revenue. But that's out of the scope of my post's intent. Everyone is changing the damn subject matter to try and twist it to their own personal vendetta. After all, that's the nature of P&N. To back one into a corner and cry foul and try to make one look stupid.

Fiscal responsibility? You do realize that it's Congress that controls the purse right?

You do know Presidents always talk about lowering taxes or in the case of Hillary, raise taxes, don't you?

Leadership? That's rather vague and can mean different things to different people. For what I think leadership means I think it's a desirable trait.

How can the term leadership be vague? It's cut and clear. Let me define it for you just in case you have forgotten.

noun
an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction:
They prospered under his strong leadership.

What does that even mean? I don't think a guy who has run many cons and who hasn't been caught is the kind of success a president needs.

You describe Obama very well. Congratulations.

What does that even mean?

adjective
1.
achieving or having achieved success.
2.
having attained wealth, position, honors, or the like.
3.
resulting in or attended with success.

So you got 1 out of 3 that aren't bullshit!

Opinions are like assholes...

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: The U.S. Government is one hell of a complex bureaucracy. It is structured and ran like one on purpose. Do you really honestly think that enacting simple business tactics into a complex and inefficient system is going to make things any better?

If we had real fiscal responsibility like a successful businesses, I would hazard a guess things would be a hell of a lot better.

The U.S. government is essentially designed to do things that any private business or organization would never ever consider doing in their lifetimes. For example: space exploration is something most private enterprises will not throw away their money on

You might want to talk to Sir Richard Branson.

But a bureaucracy that is willing to throw money on being on the front line of space exploration is entirely possible. NASA, as of right now, is the only organization who's willing to go to Mars, because no private organization is willing to spend that much money on such a thing.

Because the government has an endless supply of money you joker! Print you bastard, print! Meanwhile inflation goes up and up.

Likewise, the amount of money and support our military gets is only possible because of our government. Do you think any private organization is willing to spend the billions and trillions of dollars necessary to keep our beast of a military alive? Now you can argue about how much funding our military deserves overall, but that's not the point of this argument.

Once again. Endless supply of tax payer money that foots the bill. This is in stark contrast to a company that has to remain in the confines of fiscal sanity all the while trying to make a profit. Hence leadership and successfulness.

Being a successful businessman or a neurosurgeon does not automatically mean that you will be a good president, because bureaucracy works very differently from such professions. As crazy and as inefficient as a bureaucracy is, it is also for the exact same reasons why it manages to even work in the first place.

It only works because of a fella named James Madison. That doesn't mean having the traits I describe in my post have no bearinig or weight to command a nation into prosperity.

 

[John Connor]

while starting two very expensive wars to allow the nation to go down in the dirt even deeper still.

The first war was a response to a direct and deliberate attack and needed to be fought. The second war was bullshit. But with the way Democrats spend money, does a war really cover up the fiscal irresponsibility? Besides, Congress was all Dem controlled during Bush's Admin. and then you have Barney Frank to thank for not regulating the GSE's which Mc Cain wanted. The bill to do so was shoot down by you guessed it, Democrats. Meanwhile the bubble burst. That was the catalysis. But there's another problem. Over regulation, high asinine corporate taxes of 35% and corporate inversion. All this needs to change or we WILL fail as a nation. A nation that makes nothing and has no jobs. Just look at Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, you name it. All Dem controlled and all a waist land. Trickle up my ass!

 

[Brainonska511]

Jesus man. Learn about the Treasury. Learn about tax revenue. But that's out of the scope of my post's intent. Everyone is changing the damn subject matter to try and twist it to their own personal vendetta. After all, that's the nature of P&N. To back one into a corner and cry foul and try to make one look stupid.

Are you saying then that by the fact that the IRS and the Treasury department handle money means they are like a business? I'm not following the logic.

I'm not trying to play a game of making you look stupid, I want you to explicitly expand on your ideas outlined in the original post. Could you further define these nebulous traits and tell us how they are experiences only attainable in the business world?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The first war was a response to a direct and deliberate attack and needed to be fought. The second war was bullshit. But with the way Democrats spend money, does a war really cover up the fiscal irresponsibility? Besides, Congress was all Dem controlled during Bush's Admin. and then you have Barney Frank to thank for not regulating the GSE's which Mc Cain wanted. The bill to do so was shoot down by you guessed it, Democrats. Meanwhile the bubble burst. That was the catalysis. But there's another problem. Over regulation, high asinine corporate taxes of 35% and corporate inversion. All this needs to change or we WILL fail as a nation. A nation that makes nothing and has no jobs. Just look at Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, you name it. All Dem controlled and all a waist land. Trickle up my ass!

wow, so this is the end result of fox propaganda, a incoherent, nonsensical rambling.
No need to waist my time reading this.

 

[John Connor]

Are you saying then that by the fact that the IRS and the Treasury department handle money means they are like a business? I'm not following the logic.

I'm not trying to play a game of making you look stupid, I want you to explicitly expand on your ideas outlined in the original post. Could you further define these nebulous traits and tell us how they are experiences only attainable in the business world?

Business-like. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/treasury-fed-reserve.asp

When you are a President you have things to consider. Like taxes, economic growth, cost expenditures, etc. This can all be summed up with the Misery index that Presidents are often graded on.

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

The only modern presidents to come to mind who had much business experience were GWB & Jimmy Carter.

Business success can be achieved in a variety of ways, creative bankruptcy being one of many. In that, Trump took a lot of money out of Atlantic City (his own words) while his investors & contractors took the hit. He took a lot of money out of Trump Baja & Trump U, I'm sure.

The qualities of a man who does things that way don't seem to be presidential in the slightest, but YMMV depending on how gullible you really are.

 

[Jhhnn]

wow, so this is the end result of fox propaganda, a incoherent, nonsensical rambling.
No need to waist my time reading this.

He's also factually incorrect. Repubs held both the executive & legislative branches from Jan 2003 until Jan 2007.

 

[John Connor]

He's also factually incorrect. Repubs held both the executive & legislative branches from Jan 2003 until Jan 2007.

Guess you're right. Could have sworn it was the opposite. But wait. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/...ths-getting-in-the-way-of-the-inherited-meme/

 

[dawp]

I would argue just the opposite, that business experience makes for a lousy president.

Just look at Bush 43.

 

[trenchfoot]

The first war was a response to a direct and deliberate attack and needed to be fought. The second war was bullshit. But with the way Democrats spend money, does a war really cover up the fiscal irresponsibility? Besides, Congress was all Dem controlled during Bush's Admin. and then you have Barney Frank to thank for not regulating the GSE's which Mc Cain wanted. The bill to do so was shoot down by you guessed it, Democrats. Meanwhile the bubble burst. That was the catalysis. But there's another problem. Over regulation, high asinine corporate taxes of 35% and corporate inversion. All this needs to change or we WILL fail as a nation. A nation that makes nothing and has no jobs. Just look at Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, you name it. All Dem controlled and all a waist land. Trickle up my ass!

If Bush Corp. hadn't gone into Iraq but instead concentrated their efforts toward eliminating Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden (the original rallying call to war by Bush, remember?) then it's pretty obvious we wouldn't be anywhere near as deep in the Middle Eastern muck as we are at the moment. Remember Bush's own words: "So I don’t know where he (Bin Laden) is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him..."

In essence, you mean to say those billions upon billions of tax $$$ spent and still being spent in the Middle East due to Bush/Cheney's conspiratorial decision to fight a war in Iraq is a better way to spend our treasure than the infrastructure projects and all of those other worthy endeavors sponsored by the Dems (and blocked by the Repubs) to help the middle class and the poor recover from the economic disaster that Bush/Cheney help create?

I hope not.

And please, let's not get into providing America's profiteering banksters and Corporate Raiders any more corporate welfare and loopholes that's already helped them to rake in those huge profits since Obama took office. With CEO's bonuses and bulging portfolios getting bigger by the minute we really don't need to shove any more free money down their throats.

Even with the existing largess being provided to the very wealthy of this nation by those legislators that they've corrupted, you also want to provide them, via deregulation, etc. virtual free access to treasury to boot?

Bist du verrückt?

 

[norseamd]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

So here is a very fundamental question for you on this.

Do you think Trump meets all or even any of those criteria?

 

[norseamd]

Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all had sheep followers, but ultimately failed at their cause. Point I'm making here is that having the ability to gain followers doesn't mean you have skills necessary to run a country successfully.

What cause of Stalin are you talking about here?

 

[brycejones]

So here is a very fundamental question for you on this.

Do you think Trump meets all or even any of those criteria?

He is very fiscally responsible.....well except for the businesses that went bankrupt, the suppliers he stiffed on payment.

 

[agent00f]

It seems to me that running a business gives you the skills and aptitude necessary to lead a country. I say this primarily on three aspects. They are,

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

What's say you?

Trump is what rubes think a successful businessman looks like, which is how he built a brand on taking them for a ride.

 

[Triloby]

If we had real fiscal responsibility like a successful businesses, I would hazard a guess things would be a hell of a lot better.

Running a country and running a company are two entirely different things. What makes sense for a private business isn't going to make sense for a massive bureaucracy. A bureaucracy has no sense of fiscal responsibility, because that is not one of its main goals or functions.

You might want to talk to Sir Richard Branson.

About what? The new LauncherOne rocket from Virgin Galactic? That rocket is only designed to launch small satellites into low-earth orbit. There's obviously nothing wrong with that, but you sure as hell didn't consider what I said here:

....unless the risks and rewards have been fully quantified.

Launching unmanned rockets carrying small payloads is something private enterprises would've never considered doing back when we didn't understand the risks, challenges, and dangers of space exploration in the 50's, 60's, and such. Only a few select organizations, like NASA, at that time was willing to tackle those kinds of challenges back then, and help quantify and understand the risks and rewards required for making space travel in the private sector possible for the future.

Do you really think SpaceX and Virgin Galactic would invest in space exploration if they didn't have their work already cut out for them? NASA has done so many unmanned, small payload, rocket launches into space to the point where they can let private businesses do that kind of thing for them. It took many well-known successes and failures from NASA before the private sector understood what they can and can't do as a whole. Private space travel would've never have happened if NASA didn't have the funding needed by the government to make it happen half a century ago.

Because the government has an endless supply of money you joker! Print you bastard, print! Meanwhile inflation goes up and up.

That's adorable. You actually think our government is throwing money at NASA, when it's the exact opposite. I can easily point out how corporate welfare and pork barrel projects in Congress are far bigger wastes of money than investing in space exploration. I don't see you complaining about those two.

Once again. Endless supply of tax payer money that foots the bill. This is in stark contrast to a company that has to remain in the confines of fiscal sanity all the while trying to make a profit. Hence leadership and successfulness.

There is no such thing as fiscal sanity when running America's military. If there was, our military wouldn't even be half as powerful or as effective as it is now. You can argue about the controversy of the F-35 fighter jet all you want, but that's just one small aspect about our military's funding.

It only works because of a fella named James Madison. That doesn't mean having the traits I describe in my post have no bearinig or weight to command a nation into prosperity.

There are many ways of leading a country into prosperity. It is not a one-way street, and you can only scream about tax cuts and spending cuts so much before people start complaining about the direction America is taking.

 

[agent00f]

Running a country and running a company are two entirely different things. What makes sense for a private business isn't going to make sense for a massive bureaucracy. A bureaucracy has no sense of fiscal responsibility, because that is not one of its main goals or functions.

I have to deal w/ business folk from time to time, and there's practically no way someone who films a reality show and dicks around with his own beauty pageant does any kind of srs bidness, much less at an executive level. D.Trump seems to be the front man for the family operation, brought out to entertained his counterparts and keep up personal relationships, but the actual "business" of doing business (contract negotiations, etc) is actually done by folks behind the scenes.

Other than maybe leveraging his brand to play rubes, there's zero indication of any business accomplishment, initiative, or innovation on his part. Scamming small time contractors out of a few bucks is frankly just low, even for real estate development. For the most part he's coasted his whole life using the family business to fund a playboy lifestyle, and just happened to run as a white nationalist for president when nobody else would stoop low enough.

 

[Zaap]

A leader who's pissing away money like there's no end to it, blowing way past any surpluses and putting us into debt at a record pace - faster than any PM before him. Ridiculous self-indulgences and huge handouts to his "friends".

I can only hope the USA doesn't go the same path. A business can't survive this way, neither can a country.

GO the same path?

Are you kidding? As you describe him, your PM sounds OVER-QUALIFED to be an American politician.


Experience running a company successfully would be a nice qualifier for a politician in a political system where it mattered a whole hill of beans. In our current system its more important just to talk a big game while maintaining the status quo, make some pandering speeches, guilt trip those that love guilt trips, spend mountains of money get nothing done. Hillary will be PERFECT at that.

But of course just having business experience isn't enough. Bad as Hillary will be... Trump would be orders of magnitude worse.

The only upside of a Trump win would be seeing already unstable leftists just lose their one remaining braincell and go absolutely batshit beyond anything we've yet seen.

Entertaining as that would be (and it would be that!) Ultimately... not worth it.

I predict many will keep going batshit over Trump even after he loses so we've all got that to look forward to anyway ... call it a freebie!

 

[agent00f]

GO the same path?

Are you kidding? As you describe him, your PM sounds OVER-QUALIFED to be an American politician.


Experience running a company successfully would be a nice qualifier for a politician in a political system where it mattered a whole hill of beans. In our current system its more important just to talk a big game while maintaining the status quo, make some pandering speeches, guilt trip those that love guilt trips, spend mountains of money get nothing done. Hillary will be PERFECT at that.

But of course just having business experience isn't enough. Bad as Hillary will be... Trump would be orders of magnitude worse.

The only upside of a Trump win would be seeing already unstable leftists just lose their one remaining braincell and go absolutely batshit beyond anything we've yet seen.

Entertaining as that would be (and it would be that!) Ultimately... not worth it.

I predict many will keep going batshit over Trump even after he loses so we've all got that to look forward to anyway ... call it a freebie!

Reads like self-parody.

 

[ivwshane]

My response is in bold.

Jesus man. Learn about the Treasury. Learn about tax revenue. But that's out of the scope of my post's intent. Everyone is changing the damn subject matter to try and twist it to their own personal vendetta. After all, that's the nature of P&N. To back one into a corner and cry foul and try to make one look stupid.




You do know Presidents always talk about lowering taxes or in the case of Hillary, raise taxes, don't you?

Yes and you do know that trumps tax plan would create over five trillion more in debt? That's fiscal responsibility to you? You also realize trump has used bankruptcy more than a few times right? I guess that's more of the kind fiscal responsibility you like. You know that trump has a history of not paying people he hires the money owes them right? I'm sure you told that little girl group that played at his rallies where trump didn't live up to his end of the bargain as just another great example of trumps fiscal responsibility, right?



How can the term leadership be vague? It's cut and clear. Let me define it for you just in case you have forgotten.

noun
an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction:
They prospered under his strong leadership.

What you don't seem to understand is that examples of such leadership are not agreed upon. For example, to me, someone who isn't able to restrain themselves from making outrageous or stupid comments (like starting a war with Iran because they made rude gestures), is not an example of leadership I would my president to have. Its certainly not good leadership to me to have someone that sues people when they say mean things about you. Using coded language to incite violence is certainly not the kind of leadership I want in my president. Leadership to me isn't someone that lies more than they tell the truth and never admits they are wrong. Good leadership to me isn't someone that takes advantage of a broken system for personal gain instead trying to fix it (you know how a billionaire doesn't pay taxes). I'm sure you'd agree with me on these points right? Of course you wouldn't but that's because you have no fucking clue what good leadership is.


You describe Obama very well. Congratulations.

Oh? How many lawsuits has Obama been involved with that directly relate to fraud? How many fake universities has Obama created and is now being sued for false advertisement? How many 9/11 tax breaks has Obama taken advantage of that he didn't qualify for? How many contractors has Obama not paid in full despite the goods and services being delivered? How many charities has Obama claimed to have donated to but whose charities said they never received a dime? How many charities has he said he has personally donated to but instead paid money via his own charity despite not donating any money to his own charity for years? So go on, do tell us all how I describe Obama.


adjective
1.
achieving or having achieved success.
2.
having attained wealth, position, honors, or the like.
3.
resulting in or attended with success.







Opinions are like assholes...

Did you forget you posted a question on a forum asking for opinions on your thoughts? Well, opinions are like assholes, some stink more than others and yours are certainly shit. I think your new nickname should be skid mark.





If we had real fiscal responsibility like a successful businesses, I would hazard a guess things would be a hell of a lot better.



You might want to talk to Sir Richard Branson.





Because the government has an endless supply of money you joker! Print you bastard, print! Meanwhile inflation goes up and up.





Once again. Endless supply of tax payer money that foots the bill. This is in stark contrast to a company that has to remain in the confines of fiscal sanity all the while trying to make a profit. Hence leadership and successfulness.



It only works because of a fella named James Madison. That doesn't mean having the traits I describe in my post have no bearinig or weight to command a nation into prosperity.

The traits you described aren't unique to business people. You think they are because you are trying to justify support for a shitty candidate who has very few redeeming qualities. You are simply a follower of the cult called trump and I'd really wish you'd drink the kool-aid already and do us all a favor.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump's success, whatever that is, depends entirely on the existence of suckers.

No matter what happens after November, this guy is going to continue being "successful."

 

[JTsyo]

The first war was a response to a direct and deliberate attack and needed to be fought. The second war was bullshit. But with the way Democrats spend money, does a war really cover up the fiscal irresponsibility? Besides, Congress was all Dem controlled during Bush's Admin. and then you have Barney Frank to thank for not regulating the GSE's which Mc Cain wanted. The bill to do so was shoot down by you guessed it, Democrats. Meanwhile the bubble burst. That was the catalysis. But there's another problem. Over regulation, high asinine corporate taxes of 35% and corporate inversion. All this needs to change or we WILL fail as a nation. A nation that makes nothing and has no jobs. Just look at Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, you name it. All Dem controlled and all a waist land. Trickle up my ass!

That's just not true. We still manufacture plenty, we just do it with fewer people. We have gotten more efficient. Unemployment is now at normal levels.

 

[John Connor]

That's just not true. We still manufacture plenty, we just do it with fewer people. We have gotten more efficient. Unemployment is now at normal levels.

The number of people of all ages whom the government considers "not in the labor force" swelled by 664,000 to a record 94.7 million Americans, according to Labor Department data.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-u...g-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.html

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/us-u...g-for-jobs-at-a-frightening-level-survey.html

But you said we were a nation that makes nothing. If so then why is our manufacturing output at an all time high?

 

[John Connor]

You know, I'm getting awfully tired of arguing with idiots. You do know that we import damn near everything? In fact, Long Beach has an excess of shipping containers because of all the China imports. They sell them to people making offices and what not out of shipping containers.

Anyway, I'm outta here. P&N is full of idiots.