And you wonder why they don’t understand the real world and economy that the rest of us live in?
Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required
By Nick Schulz
American Enterprise Institute
November 25, 2009A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.
When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable.
These are the people we are supposed to trust with our health care and creating jobs? So few of them have ever worked in a real job in their entire life!
when you’re neck deep in ivy league leftists,marxists and terrorists, there’s not much room for anybody else.
correction. at 8 years old, obama did organize his community into the takeover of a productive, white- owned lemonade stand. the lemonade stand quickly lost money and was that day torn down. however, the sweet memories of his first taste of social justice would eventually find its way into his memoirs. does this count for executive experience?
Republican Presidents seem to be inclined to hire people who have actually worked within the system, While Democrats, especially Obama, hire people who have worked or milked the system.
Well, inexperience and the backing of the Chicago mob machine has always been the norm. Perhaps they were trying to find out how far up they go and now we know.
Here are a few things one should consider before using such a “statistic” to draw any conclusion:
1) Experience does not equate with expertise. You can have a lot of experience and still SUCK at what you do.
2) Experience (even good experience) in one area does not translate into adequate performance in another. Think Herschel Walker and bobsledding, or Michael Jordan bedeviled by the curveball. Just because someone was a wizard in business does not mean they will be even close to competent at government.
3) This relies on the fiction that all businesses are well run and, therefore, running government like a business would be a good thing. Obviously nonsensical: many businesses, large and small, are very poorly run. Otherwise, Lehman Brothers would still be around and we would not have needed to bail out Citicorp. Just ask Neil Bush and George W. Bush how easy it is to fail at business.
4) The chart shows what the Cabinet members did before. It says nothing about the undersecretary ranks, the civil service hires, etc., where the real policy is created and implemented.
5) Which is more relevant to being in government: being a former governor (like Gary Locke at Commerce) or running Pepsi (like the former Bush Commerce head)? Condi Rice was a career government hire. Are you saying she was incompetent to do her job since she was not from the private sector? Ditto Colin Powell and John Ashcroft? The “business” bias expressed in this post makes no sense.
5) All that chart REALLY shows is that since Eisenhower, GOPer administrations tend to draw more people straight from business than Dem administration. So what? Clinton’s non-private sector crew had much better unemployment and GDP numbers than Bush’s private sector heavy group. (Roll out your excuses for Bush’s poor performance starting . . . NOW!)
Add it all together and what do you get? Nothing. Bush had much more business experience and his administration was a failure. Running huge deficits year after year, botched Katrina, poorly executed occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. That private sector heavy crew obviously knew nothing about governing and it showed.
Birds of a feather flock together.
@Rob
Interesting that you would immediately do the comparo to Bush.
As an engineer, I would have done a blind comparison (names removed), and compared him to Ike, as he has the most deviation from the min, then compared policies.
On the other hand, one of the worse presidents that ever lived was Wilson, and he had a high private-sector quotient.
Considering that this present level is completely unprecedented, and considering the failures and proposals so far, a case can be made that he hasn’t enough. Which is what has been done here.
The graph tell pretty much the whole story.
The worst President so far was Carter with Obama trying very hard to surpass him.
They all had their faults but some exercised poorer judgment than others.
The Katrina issue lies at the feet of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of N.O. Period. Each State has an Emergency Management Plan. The Gov. of LA failed to execute it so lets get off of that BS. The Army Corps of Engineers also failed to maintain their Flood Control structures. Blame the Politicians in Uniform at the Pentagon.
Blame the SEC and Congress Weasels, Democrats, for a failure in oversight on the Financial Sector, Fanny and Freddie. The head of the Fed was a bad choice on Bush’s part. The bailouts at Taxpayer Expense was a very bad decision. There is no business entity that is too big to fail.
Enlarging the Fed Deficit is an Obama screw up. I guess that Affirmative Action products that never ran a business were exempt from learning economics at Ivy League schools. Learning to wrangle Federal Block Grants for Criminal Enterprises like ACORN or SEIU must have been in the curriculum though. You can blame Bush all day but he has been out of office and had a Democrat Majority in Congress that handled the checkbook for the past 3 years.
@B-Rob: Nice regurgitation of the George Soros approved talking points on this issue.
But do you really mean to suggest that the government is better run than private businesses?
If so, I think you might have your talking points confused with your script for your comedy club debut.
P.S. I hope you’re not doing the same statistical analysis job for the UN on climate change!
@ Mike’s America —
Certain things are constants — the sun rises in the east, the Dallas Cowboys rule, and Mike’s America spouts more nonsense. Where to start . . . .
“Nice regurgitation of the George Soros approved talking points on this issue.”
You have a real hard on for that guy, huh? You mention him in every post. What’s that all about? Is it the silver hair that attracts you? Daddy issues?
“But do you really mean to suggest that the government is better run than private businesses?”
If I “meant” to say that, I would have said it, now wouldn’t I? I said what I meant:
— experience means nothing if you suck. As the guys who ran DHL.
— experience in one area does not translate into performance in another. Like what was the background of the brain-donors who dreamed up the Iraq invasion?
— some businesses are run poorly, so why would “business experience” per se be valued? That makes no sense unless you cons are making a “diversity” argument.
— the chart ignores the experience and background of the sub-Cabinet level appointees, where performance makes or breaks a presidency — just ask Bush about friggin “Brownie” and the bang up job he did with FEMA.
— business experience can be poor preparation for working in government compared to prior government experience; vice versa, of course, too. And
— Clinton had fewer private sector people and he did much better at managing the economy and at job creation than Bush . . . which, of course, destroys the flawed premise of the post.
“If so, I think you might have your talking points confused with your script for your comedy club debut.”
You had no substantive objection with what I noted . . . probably because my post added in the common sense element that the opening post lacked. Indeed . . . do you ever actually stay on point? Old Zbig never mentioned where the Ritalin was, I guess.
“P.S. I hope you’re not doing the same statistical analysis job for the UN on climate change!”
Whatever . . . as soon as you cons explain to me why the Japanese are so off to be worried about it and to retool their economy to be more energy efficient, I might be inpressed with your arguments. But as John McCain noted, I fail to see the down side in getting more energy efficient, using less OPEC and Chavez oil, and poluting our environment less than we are now. Nixon was a GENIUS for pushing clean water. If you cons had your way, the Cuyahoga River would still be catching on fire, instead of the seagull everywhere stalking the tons of fish in the much-cleaner river. Luckily, no one was listening to you then and no one is listening to that not-so-bright Senator from Oklahoma now.
@ Patvann —
I compared Bush to Clinton for one rather obvious reason — they are the most recent. Why would you compare Microsoft and internet era Clinton to carbon-paper era Eisenhower? Computer and robot manufacturing under Clinton vs. a bunch of guys with wrenches under Woodrow Wilson? Not exactly a fair comparison. No, Bush versus Clinton is the most fair comparison because they are both recent and both had eight years.
If the central thesis of this post held any water, then Bush would have WAY out performed Clinton. But one president ran surpluses and the other busted the budget for generations to come. The thesis above wouldlimply that the “Ivy League lefties” would have done a poor job and the “captain of industry” cons would have shone. In fact, the libs blew the doors off the economy and the GOPers sucked eggs. Facts always seem to f. up a good conservative talking point . . . .
@ Mike’s America —
I asked you a question a couple weeks ago and I don’t think you answered. So I will ask a variation:
Imagine it is October mid 2012. Obama is running for president again, against a GOPer of whatever ilk.
Would you rather we have 3% GDP growth and 6% unemployment . . . or -1% GDP recession and 10% unemployment when the votes are cast in November 2012?
Simple question. I bet I know what Rush would say, and I know you probably agree. Ditto.
@ Patvann —
“Considering that this present level is completely unprecedented, and considering the failures and proposals so far, a case can be made that he hasn’t enough. Which is what has been done here.”
Given than Obama is not even a year in to the presidency, what “failures” are you claiming permit anyone to already judge the effectiveness of his administration? He has not even had a budget cycle, or gotten key appointments through the Senate. When he has four years, then success or failure can reasonably be ascribed . . . not now, though.
Another thing — I saw McCain on Hannity the other day and they basically agreed “Obama has apologized to the world and gotten nothing in return.” Not sure how to break it to you guys, but Rome was not built in a day and it did not take a couple months for the Bush administration to trash our rep. Likewise, restoring our standing will take some time. Getting people to come around to our side will take some work. And it would HELP if the Senate GOPers got out of the way and let the man get his diplomats in place so that the work could be done.
And another thing — one thing I don’t get is the con whining about Obama “not proclaiming American exceptionalism” when he is visiting other countries. They said it when he spoke in Cairo and again when he did not say “Hell yeah, it was great!” when he was asked about dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. So a question, cons:
at what school of diplomacy do they teach that it is a “good thing” to go to another man’s country and tell him and his people how much a f’cking bada$$ you are? Nikita K. did that in his “we will bury you” speech . . . how’d that work out for him? In fact, when has anyone come to this country and dissed us and gotten what he wanted? Never. So what makes you think it would work in anyone else’s country?
Indeed, a lot of the conservative approaches to dealing with foreign countries seems to work from the premise that you “show strength” when you treat foreign leaders like they are children. “We won’t talk to you unless you do X, Y, and Z.” “We do not recognize your legitimacy.” “Jump through the random hoops I set up, then I will acknowledge your existence.” Again — these are grown f”cking men who you are trying to influence. How the hell do you think you are going to get them to do anything you want by needlessly dissing them? How does that make any sense?
A lot of the diplomatic failures of the Bush administration can be traced back to simple lessons that obviously were never learned on the playground or in the streets. Time to let the new sheriff take a shot at his way of dealing with the world. If he fails, so be it. But it just might work. Alas . . . I bet that is what the cons actually fear . . . Obama succeeeding where cons failed.
Wow.
B-Rob…Amateur Bean Counter and Spin Meister? Expert on Both Domestic and Foreign Relations?
Nope. Just an angry Punk raised poorly by Folks that ate too much Dope at your conception.
Copy, Cut and Paste is not Logic by any sense of the concept. Go piss on someone boots elsewhere or go piss off your Parents. The Adults here of some achievement, knowledge and experience view you as the neighbors dog that craps on our lawn. Come back when You grow up.
You ain’t even close to that yet.Obama is a Punk Like You. Achieved Nothing and … his talking points are not valid. If You come here to irritate Us. Go home. You could learn something here if You had more good sense than a crowbar. You don’t.
Now off to Win a War and do more with less.
B-Rob, You are always be an angry non-achieving punk. I recommend Potassium Cyanide.
About 500 mg should work. IV or Oral. Do it. Take Care Punk. You offer nothing here.
Old Trooper, you always hold back. I just wish you’d cut loose for once.
Take care and come back safe.
Hey brainless rob, how is the obama way of handling foreign affairs working out? Not too good and that won’t change. Keep living in your fantasy tho. It will make our landslide in 2010 that much sweeter.
B-Rob
Clinton’s quotient was kinda middle of the road.
I think we’re trying to compare to the unprecedented quotient of Obama. Which is what the initial post implied.
What’s a “con”, and why do you keep calling us that?
One more thing…If as you say Obama’s “methodology” of bowing and scrapping to world leaders to the point that even the French view him as “weak” (not my words, Sarkozi’s), and you defend this…why are you actions/methods here so abrasive and confrontational in every thing you posit?
Should you act like Obama, or should Obama act like you?
@B-Rob:
The budget this country is functioning on right now is the budget the dems held over, he signed it with an 8% across the board increase and thousands of earmarks. No fanfare, no photo ops, rare exception to his sop.
If he wanted the key positions filled, they would be filled, he has no excuse, he has the numbers. Truth is, he doesn’t need them, he has a stable of czars that do not have to answer to the people, just what he wanted.
Apparently you have not been reading much of the foreign press lately.
He’s got Congress and the numbers, there’s no blaming the GOP for any of his appointments, the manchild needs to learn that it’s work before play. Weekly parties, date nights, burning up the skies with AF1, and golfing is obviously interfering with his duty to the American people. Maybe take a bit of pressure of AF1, you could give him a few months of GoToMeeting.com for Christmas, would save the environment and big bucks.
Fear him? Now, that’s the second time you’ve brought that up. The only reason to fear him is because of what his incompetence could do to this country, other than that, he’s a joke, what’s to fear?
You seem to be quite a bit slower than the multitudes that are jumping off that sinking ship, soon you are going to be hearing….. “Obama who? No, I didn’t vote for him! Not me, I swear!” You, will go down with that ship and hand him your life jacket.
The rest of your rant is nonsense, I’m beginning to suspect you might have been throwing a few empty cans over your shoulder tonight, kind of like a TUI.
@B-Rob: You are such a nasty piece of work it makes my job easier. Your venomous insults invalidate any solid points you have to make and thus, I can ignore them.
Not that they are all that solid anyway.
Now go back and ask George Soros what you should say next.
@Missy
All right, you just hold it right there!
I believe you have crossed a line, and I take great personal umbrage with it!!
You said to Rob:
*burp*
If I can write about advanced atmospheric chemistry with 3 beers in me, it’s OBVIOUS that there something else he’s under the influence of, rather than the nectar of the Gods!!
Now you take that back!
*There there lil’ Grolsch, it’s ok. I’ll protect you from the mean lady*
😉
@Old Trooper: I’m with Hard Right on this one, please, holding back is not good for one’s blood pressure LOL!
@Missy: B-Robb likes to fantasize that we fear the cons on the left. And they are cons no doubt about it. Larry Summers lost Harvard’s trust a BILLION and a half dollars, after being told by experts that it wasn’t a smart thing to do. Now who’s working for the leftists? Hmmm.
@B-RobbWe could easily rattle off items 1 through 100 to debunk much of your commentary but you’re doing such a bang up job of showing everyone how well the pseudo-intellectual leftist fits two feet in their mouth at one time. Bravo. Your attempts at peering over your glasses at us while you wag your finger and lecture really don’t phase anyone I know. Just makes me smile. Because of the attitudes exhibited by those who have manufactured more crises than I can ever recall in such a short period of time are exactly what is going to choke you off from winning elections for a very long time. And should the right choose the wrong candidate, we’ll hold him or her accountable and vote them out. Actually, we should vote them all out and start fresh.
USMC, I see you notice how the left just has to bring up Bush and/or make excuses for obama. Braindead rob says he hasn’t had a year in office, but the left had no problem blaming Bush for 9/11. Contradiction? Not to the refugess from reality like braindead.
“People” like him really are mentally ill and the venom they spew is because we dare to inject reality into the fantasy they so desperately want to live in.
Old Trooper sees them for what they are. I wish we had more like him.
@Patvann:
I know what I said and I said it thinking that if he could say what he said, what I said was quite mild. Mean is what I do to telephone soliciters.
No, won’t take it back. I expect you to understand that there are boys and then there are big boys, I think we all know where you fit in the scheme of things.
Cheers! May the road rise up to meet you and may the wind always be at your back.
@Missy
Honorable and kind madam. (except to solicitors)
I hope my little comedic bit went over as planned. Imagine it with smiles all over it, and me typing it with a big dorkee grin on my face, all the while cheering you on. 🙂
What is missing from an administration that is composed primarily of individuals whose experience and expertise comes from the public sector?
Economic Risk Assessment
I have prefaced the term “risk assessment” with “economic” because politicians obviously weigh the risks of saying the wrong thing and alienating the voting public. However, since the re-election rate of incumbent politicians is slightly north of 90% I don’t believe that they are really too concerned about what their constituents think. But, when it comes to economic risk assessment, what experience could they have? Career public service bureaucrats have never started their own businesses where they have to risk everything in order to make it go. They’ve never had to weigh the pros and cons of hiring a new employee or retaining one.
Average cost to hire (Saratoga Institute):
non-exempt employee $1100
exempt employee $9000
Average cost to terminate:
$1000 to $1500
Does the cost to hire vs the cost of vacancy warrant the expansion of the workforce?
Under stable government regulations/taxation we know that a business can expect to add 20 to 40 percent to the hourly wage for benefits, depending on the benefits package offered. These are fairly easy to calculate in a simple spreadsheet program. However, when you add uncertainty to the cost to hire vs cost of vacancy equation and the majority of the uncertainty factors fall on the cost to hire side of the equation then it is often more prudent to accept the certainty of the cost of vacancy rather than risk a companies profitability by hiring.
The Obama administration has failed to understand the ramifications of its current course of legislative priorities and this might be a direct result of the lack of individuals within the administration with private sector experience.
We now see the Obama administration taking up the jobs creation issue. Something they should have been considering when they were appropriating the 787 billion in stimulus money.
Instead these public sector bureaucrats used the money to fund a major expansion of public projects that do little create jobs NOW but instead seem more oriented towards political payolla.
The current expenditure of stimulus money reminds me of Zimbawe and the way Mugabe distributed food aid. Villages that supported Mugabe received food and those villages that did not support him starved. Ohio is a prime example of this disgusting practice. 17% of the stimulus money earmarked for Ohio went to districts that did not support Obama while a whooping 83% went to districts that did support Obama. This kind of partisanship should have no place in American society/government.
The big “Jobs Summit” held by Obama the other day reinforces my belief that the Obama administration is clueless when it comes to job creation but very adroit at their ability to find ways to payoff their political operatives. One suggestion coming out of the “jobs summit” was to fund “weatherization of homes” as a way to create jobs. If weatherization of a home was a cost effective way of spending money then the private sector would have taken up the burden because homeowners would have engaged in the hiring of individuals to perform the task and there would have been a profit for the businesses involved. What the “weatherization of homes” really is is another payoff for unions at taxpayer expense. 75% of the money earmarked for “weatherization” in Seattle must go to union workers. Again I’m having visions of starving zimbaweans only this time they are non-union workers.
I guess Home weatherization is the kind of vision one should expect when you elect a “community organizer” to the most powerful office in the world.
We need hope and change! I for one will be actively working for both in 2010. Political activism is not something I have actively engaged in over the course of my life. But, since I have decided to maintain my business in a status quo state under the current economic uncertainty rather than expand, I’ll have the time.
@ Old Trooper —
Your rant is one of the reasons no one listens to the right any more. Yours is a shrinking and aging minority party in LARGE PART because you simply DON’T THINK.
@ USMC Daughter1 —
You might want to get your facts straight. Larry Summers, to my knowledge, did not run the Harvard endowment. The geniuses who did are responsible for any losses they incurred.
I love this line —
“We could easily rattle off items 1 through 100 to debunk much of your commentary”
I can’t dance to save my own life. But when I am watching TV with my teenaged daughter and I see someone do something spectacular on “Dancing with the Stars”, I always say “I can do that . . . I just don’t want to.”
Yeah, I bet you and Old Trooper and Mike’s America have 101 things you could say to “disprove” my first thesis that “experience does not equate to expertise” . . . you just chose not to share right now, preferring to put it in a double encrypted, super-secret memo that you are locking in a titanium and stainless steel vault, right? Yeah, just as I thought.
Here’s the thing, Daughter — if what I said was so obviously incorrect, you should have NOT PROBLEM prividing a pithy statement or a link undercutting me, wouldn’t you? But you and the other two goofs just prattle on and on with the name calling. This is what the Party of Palin is offering in the way of learned discourse. And barry Goldwater spins a little bit faster in his grave . . . .
Golly Robby.
When I look at the polls the Dem’s are losing support faster than Trooper re-loads. The Indies are moving into the Repub camp faster than Mike A hands your retorts, and the best you can come up with in light of this independent verification of all polling data is to call all those people “old”.
Too bad stupid doesn’t hurt.
P.S. Obama is the best Republican recruiter since Reagan. Thank you 52er’s for opening America’s eyes!!!
@B-Rob
I notice that you focused on one rant out of 25 posts. Go figure. Let me add one more rant.
Sometimes people just need to vent when what is obvious to the reasonable and logical is so obscure to the kool-aid drinking left. I believe Missy pretty much blew away all of your arguments. Had you been a thinking and enlightened individual Missy wouldn’t have had to blow holes in your diatribe. Belly up boy… let me poor you another glass of kook-aid.
Concerning “American Exceptionalism”… One doesn’t have to go to a foreign country and and shout “we’re the bad ass on the block” but one shouldn’t disrespect the Office of President of the US by bowing and scraping either. The true “bad asses” don’t have to proclaim their superiority, they simply have to show quiet resolution and the point will get across.
Perhaps B-Rob, you are one of the 65 million in this country that doesn’t actually pay taxes so irresponsible fiscal policy has no perceived effect on your life other than the anticipation of another government handout.
@ PatVann —
You wrote the following:
“If as you say Obama’s ‘methodology’ of bowing and scrapping to world leaders to the point that even the French view him as “weak” (not my words, Sarkozi’s), and you defend this…why are you actions/methods here so abrasive and confrontational in every thing you posit? Should you act like Obama, or should Obama act like you?”
Glad you asked the question. Simple answer: I am not trying to convince anyone on this board to do something they otherwise might not do, nor am I trying to make you an ally. In contrast, Obama is trying to get people to do something they don’t want to do — like get China to help with Iran . . . which help we need if sanctions will work. You don’t do that by having an “I’ll the sh*t” tour of the world.
You mention “bowing and scraping.” Those are just pejorative adjectives with no real substantive meaning. Like referring to Bush as “a cowboy.” I am talking about something more basic, which is “when working diplomacy, do not be an a$$hole.” I mean, seriously . . . John Bolton as the UN ambassador? What kind of signal are you trying to send?
Back to Obama in Cairo. Please explain to me how it would have helped the US decrease the venom and mistrust of the US by going to Cairo and giving a speech about “American exceptionalism”? Do you think that would work if someone did that here? How does it make any sense to think that it would work anywhere else if it would not work here? Indeed, how have Chavez speeches gone over here?
And on the part about treating men like they are men: this is such a basic tenent of common sense that I fail to see why cons don’t admit it is an issue. When you go out of your way to diminish a man’s masculinity, you make needless enemies. If you f. up, you say you are sorry. If you want to change a relationship, you say lets move forward and leave out bad past in the past. Imagine if your wife/GF did something wrong (whether maliciously or thoughlessly) and tried to act as if if never happened, or even worse, tried to make you the a$$hole because you did not “get over it”. How would that work out? You would harbor resentment, of course.
Lastly, I doubt that an objective viewer would agree with you that I am being mean to people, especially as compared to the nasty non-sequitors sent my way. But being someone who does research and writing for a living, I can give back in spades what I get in spoon fulls. Usually, the most infuriating way to do this is to simply show the Mack Truck-sized holes in conservative arguments . . . which is so easy nowadays.
@ D. Bly —
I haven’t read everything yet. I will have to see what Missy has to say. But before I do, I simply doubt that she can logically refute, for example, my “experience does not equate with expertise” argument, for example. We all KNOW that there are people who are more skilled at a younger age that others will be even with a ten year head start. Mozart was Mozart; Salieri was Salieri. Who would have chosen Salieri over Mozart simply because he was “more experienced”? That would make no sense.
Likewise, are you telling me that business experience would make a person better per se at government than academic experience or prior government? Based on what? If you base that on flat out opinion, fine. But don’t try to sell me that running government “like a business” means it would actually function better . . . especially when so many businesses are poorly run, or succeed in spite of poor management decisionmaking. Do you really want the people behind “New Coke” calling the shots on creating regulations for Social Security? Er, no.
@ Missy —
My responses:
“The budget this country is functioning on right now is the budget the dems held over, he signed it with an 8% across the board increase and thousands of earmarks.”
Yes, like I said — he has not had a budget cycle. That is the Bush and Dem Congress budget cycle, not his.
“If he wanted the key positions filled, they would be filled, he has no excuse, he has the numbers. Truth is, he doesn’t need them, he has a stable of czars that do not have to answer to the people, just what he wanted.”
GOPer senators have holds on slots. You don’t actually disagree with me, you just shift the blame to Obama. But the point remains — we are less than a year into the adminisration and he does not have all his slots filled.
–Likewise, restoring our standing will take some time. Getting people to come around to our side will take some work.
“Apparently you have not been reading much of the foreign press lately.”
Two things: the foreign press is not the foreign leadership. I give not a single sh*t what the China Daily News editorial board says about Obama if the Chinese leadership thinks they can work with him. Second, as I said, it will take some time with the foreign leaders. Bush and Co. put us in a deep hole. Will take some time to get us out. I am not sure why cons want to declare him a “failure” after only two major foreign trips; but I suspect it is wishful thinking for him to fail at diplomacy because Bush failed.
“Fear him? Now, that’s the second time you’ve brought that up. The only reason to fear him is because of what his incompetence could do to this country, other than that, he’s a joke, what’s to fear?”
I think the Party of Palin truly fears that Obama will be “Clinton without the d*ck issues” as opposed to “Carter’s second term.” Obama appreciates Reagan’s approach to things and is trying to be the same kind of transformative figure. Just as the lefties did not “get” Reagan and his appeal, the wingnuts don’t “get” why Obama is so well liked. Whatever . . . it just means that you cons still don’t know why you lost the election. And if y’all haven’t figured it out, I’m certainly not going to tell you. But I will give you three hints:
suspending the campaign, Sarah Palin, and Joe the Plumber.
“You seem to be quite a bit slower than the multitudes that are jumping off that sinking ship, soon you are going to be hearing….. “Obama who? No, I didn’t vote for him! Not me, I swear!” You, will go down with that ship and hand him your life jacket.”
We are less than a year into a four year term. It’s as if you are deciding who will win a football game based on the score 13 minutes into the first quarter. It makes no sense, of course: by this time in his first term, Bush had about a 90% approval rating. How’d the rest of his presidency work out? LIkewise, I saw a chart where Obama’s job approval at this point was very similar to only one other recent president, Reagan. Likewise, how’d that work out, historically?
@B-Rob
If the current administration were comprised of Mozarts fine. But if that were true we probably would not be prioritizing the public agenda as it has been. In my opinion the current crop of bureaucrats in Washington, if we want to use the musical analogy, have about as much talent as my Jr High band teacher.
An administration full of Mozarts would not have forced through a stimulus bill without first insisting that congress read it.
An administration full of Mozarts would have realized that in the current economic climate their first priority should have been jobs… not health care/health insurance reform that won’t even begin offering benefits for another 5 years.
An administration full of Mozarts would understand how devastating “cap and tax” would be to the business climate and the creation of jobs.
We could argue all day about the advantage/disadvantage of the ratio of career bureaucrats vs private sector experience but in the end… the final grade will be based on results not good intentions. My experience has shown me that the bureaucrats feel like they’ve succeeded when they have good intentions regardless of the outcome of their actions while private sector people view their success based on their ability to accomplish the mission.
I, for one, want the least amount of government possible in order to ensure that our National Security interests are met and to ensure that the rights accorded to the individual in the Constitution are safeguarded. Beyond that … the federal government should not be involved.
@ Donald Bly —
Here is something I have been thinking about: let’s say we had a government health program that provided some basic level of coverage. ignore all the polictical philosophy arguments, etc. Just assume it exists.
Right now, an employer might have $10,000 invested in each employee’s health insurance costs. On top of $40,000 in wages. And 100 employees, for total employee costs of $5,000,000. But as the economy slackens, imagine that employer could cut his costs by that $10,000, or $1,000,000, by dropping health insurance, and he will not lose any workers because of it. Do you think that employer would rather lay off 20 employees to get the same $1 million savings, or replace the company health insurance?
Imaging another employee who works for an established company. He makes $40,000 and his health insurance costs $10,000. But his friend in doing a start up. He can pay the guy $42,000 per year with a lot of stock options, but he just can’t swing the $50,000 in costs to pay him $40,000 in salary plus another $10,000 for health insurance. But . . .
if we had a decent public option for the employee to fall back on, he could take the risk of earning $42,000 and stock options. But without that safety net, he would be a fool to leave his wife and kids uncovered for an additional $2,000 per year and the “bird in the bush” of stock options.
As I see it, one of the consequences of a decent public plan is that it will give business owners more options and employees more mobility. People will not have to stay in a job because of the health insurance package. Businesses will not have to cut people because getting rid of health care would make them uncompetitive competing for labor. You would take that huge worry off the table.
@ Donald Bly —
You missed the point of Mozart. Maybe Mozart is not your cup of tea; fine. You may prefer Bach. Whatever. But the point was that experience, per se, means nothing. That chart is all about “business experience” not about competence in business.
Honestly, I also don’t get the doom and gloom. Did you see the unemployment numbers today? GDP is expanding finally and employment may have turned the corner. We will know in time. But this administration is young. I know that Rush Limbaugh is rooting for failure (preferring high unemployment to lower), but just because some are wishing for it (a) doesn’t mean it is a done deal, or (b) that the majority of Americans share your sentiment. Obama won because more people trusted his decision-naking skills than McCains. Time will tell if they were right. I have a pretty good feeling he will end up being a good president . . . and deep down inside, I bet most of the GOPers do, too . . . and it’s killin’ ’em, because they know that it means four more years in the wilderness!
LOL! Talking about fertile imaginations….
Celebrating *only* losing
463,000so many jobs in November, and a “slight edge” down in a 10%+ employment rate? Desperate for any news, I guess. Of course the first thought that crosses my mind is how many of those in the unemployment count simply no longer qualify for the extension upon extension of benefits Congress doles out regularly.But then, just what does the BLS have to say about Nov.
The long term unemployed *rose* by 293,000 (up 2.7%). ‘scuse me whilst I dance in the streets with excitement and anticipation of recovery…
Construction, manufacturing and information industries all lost more jobs. Retail up by 8K… holiday, ya know. Temporary jobs… like all the “green” jobs Obama wants to spend a fortune on. Transportion and financial showed little change… why should they? The taxpayers are supporting them, and government workers with the ARRA.
Doesn’t take much to get you excited, does it?
Were I betting type, I’d say the unemployment rate will fluctuate month to month, so you’ll have tittillations a’comin’, as well as a few “it’s not that bad” excuses. But unemployment, by all financial predictions will stay at least at 10% thru the summer (and we’re lucky if it doesn’t go higher). I’m not alone in this.
And none of those figures actually take into account the job losses that will be a repercussion of o’healthcare taxation… or perhaps we should call it *more* layaway health benefits atop Medicare (of which I’ve been under mandates for laying away since mid 60s….). Nor any potential of cap and trade tax hikes on business, and most important, Bernanke’s inevitable raising of the interest rates to control inflation next year.
Can you say housing burst #2 and a second wave recession?
I will give you credit on being right on one thing tho, b-rob. The o’symphony is not yet complete, and only the opening stanzas have been composed. However only the deaf can ignore the off-tuned instruments that will be leading to the dollar as toilet paper with rates held too low for too long, the federal government bolstering the banking and housing industry, and what will happen with the feds pull the printing presses out from underneath both industries and the rates rise. You, me, everyone will be sitting on a toxic mortgage for the next few years after that rate increase.
Need a bit of math instruction? Own a house with a $500K mortgage? (using slightly bigger numbers since you pay “plenty” to support all those “welfare red staters”….) If you were lucky enough to lock into a jumbo loan at 5.3%, that’s a $2776 payment monthly (not including property taxes and insurance).
Raise the rate to 6.5% and that payment jumpst to $3160. Raise it to 9% and it’s $4023. Back in the Carter days, we were playing with rates 13-18%. Will we do that today?
Perhaps an extra $384 to $1247 per month for a mortgage payment with higher mortgage rates is chump change for you. But when you bring those figures down to those that hover around the $1000 montly payments… you know, those workers you libera/progressives say you want to protect?… it’s a big difference. A $1000 payment – where most FHA loans are playing (after taxes and insurance are added in, BTW) – will translate to having a mortage for $124K at 9%. If you add the needed PITI needs of say even $200 to $250 a month, that is having to buy a home worth $93K – 99K.
Most people are buying homes with these payments now between $135K – $150K. To sell those same homes to those with the same monthly budget, they will be upside down tens of thousands of dollars with the flip of a Bernanke rate switch.
Lovely. And it’s coming to a theatre near you soon…
So think cohesively for a moment, and not with the glow of hope in your eyes. Then think about the extended unemployment, and small businesses being slammed with new O’taxes? Just what do you think is going to happen to the housing market, which is the driver for economic recovery, in the next 2-3 years?
Look, b-rob… it’s not like I can’t appreciate optimism. In fact, I have plenty in light of the rising tide bucking against federal spending and nanny control. There’s a difference between your “hope” and mine. Your optimism is blind faith, despite all economic reason and forecasts in the big picture, that all Obama’s spending and increase in size of government is the life saver of this nation. My optimism is based on the citizenry thwarting the spending plans of Obama and Congress that will put this nation under financial water permanently.
And if you want to call that “rooting for failure”… feel free, bubba. I look at it as I’m rooting for the very foundations of Constitutional rights and opportunity. You’re rooting for Euro-socialism, and idiots in government in charge.
Wouldn’t it just be easier for you to move than to destroy what this country was founded on? But then, that’s me wishing…
I somehow doubt you are a regular listener to Rush Limbaugh, so I find your supposed prescient ventroloquism of what he is “wishing” for quite offensive. Not because he’s Rush, – frankly hearing you say that about anyone is offensive. In fact, you did the same to me personally. But I’m here to tell you that unless you’ve surpassed Obama on the media created deity plateau, it’s unlikely you have a clue as to Rush’s wishes for this country, or knowing squat about me or anyone else.
If you want to stop in to excrete some delusional rosy thoughts of o’optimism, that’s one thing. But attempting to pass them off to us as any reasonable conclusion of fact in light of the ongoing big economic picture, you’re merely dumping propaganda. Again, I suggest you find a lower threshhold of readers to BS.
Oh, BTW… I’ll be laughing all night long about your comments about how “no one” listens to Old Trooper. So sorry you can’t share in how deliciously inane that statement is.
@ Donald Bly —
“Perhaps B-Rob, you are one of the 65 million in this country that doesn’t actually pay taxes so irresponsible fiscal policy has no perceived effect on your life other than the anticipation of another government handout.”
Er, wrong. I pay plenty. And most Blue State citizens pay plenty in taxes, which are then shipped to Red State denizens in the form of welfare, etc. It’s why New York gets back a fraction of what it pays in and Alabama pulls in more than a dollar for every one it pays in. But I digress.
Here is what I don’t get: since when do conservatives care about deficits? You had a liberal president hand you a balanced budget and surpluses. But immediately, the conservatives cut revenues and exploded the spending, borrowing the difference from China. Clinton had “pay as you go” in place, where any tax cuts had to be offset with spending cuts. What did the GOP do? They got rid of pay go in favor of a budget gimmick they called “dynamic scoring” where you ASSUMED that a tax cut resulted in more dollars down the road. of course, that was b.s., which is why Bush ran deficits even when the economy was expanding. And what did the GOP say about running deficits when the economy was expanding? They said nothing. Just voted in lock step for more deficit spending.
What were you saying when that all went down, Don? Nothing, I would bet. In fact, NOT ONE on the GOP side was actually rejecting the bloated budgets, because the GOP voted in lockstep. Look it up!
From 2001 through 2008, conservates proved one thing: when it comes to deficit spending, either they were incompetent at cutting spending to meet the lower revenues, or they never really believed all that “smaller government” talk in the first place.
What was the McCain plan on cutting spending to get our budget back in balance? Nothing. What have they offered this year to get our current budget balanced? Nothing. So present day GOP angst about Obama’s spending is like trying to get virginity back. A little too late to be taken seriously . . . .
@ Donald Bly —
I need to sign off, but one last note. You have decided that the Obama administration is “no Mozart.” You may be right. But the opera is not complete yet; it is less than a quarter done. When it is done and played, then you can decide if it sucks. But based on your biases and preconceived notions, you have looked at the composers, checked out their resumes, and your have already decided it sucks before the first page is even complete. It is, of course, your right to have that opinion. I am just saying that it is not based in fact yet.
@B-Rob: “I need to sign off, but one last note. “
What? MORE socialist spam?
Was busy writing a very nice rebuttal and it has disappeared! I’m hoping it shows up and i can edit it. Damn ‘puters… now you see it now you don’t. I guess I should write these in notepad, save often and then transfer them to the blog.
could someone check the spam filter for one of my posts?
Sometimes when I read a “Mata”, I feel my hair being blown backwards.
@Patvann: she does seem to have more patience and TIME for these moonbats than I do.
Not that it gets her anywhere. No amount of reason can reach an arrogant, socialist kool aid drinking, Obama loving ASS.
@b-rob Obama’s “opera” as you put it IS over and that is based on fact. You however, suffer the same malaise as many of your peers – you can’t see what’s in front of you. Reminds me of when children put their hands over their eyes and can’t see the adult in front of them. They assume if they can’t see you, you can’t see them. Blindness works on both sides of the aisle.
Just curious btw, do you affect the flared nostrils like O when you write? I’d think that might be just a tad difficult with your nose so far into the air 😉 Have a nice evening!
I don’t need to sit through an entire opera to know that if the first act sucks, there is a high probability the rest of the opera sucks too. Based on recent polls it looks like the majority of Americans are beginning to think the same. It takes some longer to come around because they really don’t want to think they’ve been duped. Perhaps I saw the writing on the wall a bit sooner than some because I’ve spent years doing trend analysis for the Boeing Aircraft and Missile systems Division or perhaps the cacophony is just too harsh on the ears to be ignored.
Before I get into the meat and potatoes of my rebuttal. I am a conservative I am NOT a Republican. I can also safely say that all republicans are not necessarily conservatives and all democrats are not necessarily liberal.
Now… Here’s a free civics lesson. Congress appropriates funds not the POTUS. BJ Clinton was fortunate enough to have held the oval office during a period where the US experienced one of the greatest productivity gains in history. This was not a result of
big government but private enterprise. The democrats controlled the house and the senate. BJ Clinton’s first order of business was health care reform, aka Hillary Care. Fortunately he could not rally the democrats enough to get the bill passed and the nation was saved from an enormously expensive government run health care system. Americans rejected the liberal agenda and swept republicans into office during the mid term election. BJ Clinton, the master politician that he was, saw the writing on the wall and quickly co-opted the conservative agenda of welfare reform, balanced budget, etc. I really have to hand it to Clinton, his instinct for political survival was uncanny and seemed to outweigh any ideology. This is an area where I think Clinton and Obama differ immensely. I believe that Obama’s marxist ideology far outweighs his ability to move towards more centrist policies in order to survive politically.
At the end of Clinton’s 2nd term the US was entering a mild recession this might not have caused any great grief to the budget but then along came 911, increased security costs, the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war and Katrina. Yet even with all these unforeseen expenses the budget deficit after 8 years of Bush was only 400 billion. The democrats were screaming bloody murder and many conservatives too. However, in time of war and emergency I believe that there is some justification to for running deficits.
Then along comes Obama and within 11 months he’s managed to increase the deficit to 1.4 trillion give or take a billion here or there, of which 400 billion was nothing but pork. Remember Obama’s promise to go through the budget line by line to weed out pork. You claim that this is not Obama’s budget. You’re right but… he is the one that signed it. Obama could have vetoed it signaling that he truly wanted to be fiscally responsible but alas he did not. Given the current bills under consideration, should they pass, 1.4 trillion in deficits will seem like chump change.
One thing puzzles me, I don’t recall during Obama’s presidential campaign of him ever running on a health care/health insurance reform platform. Could it be, based on the history of Hillary Care, that he understood that he wouldn’t get elected if he did?
Obama, Acorn and the whole community organizer thing brings to mind a bunch of thugs that regularly shake down the candy store and then all of a sudden they are put in charge of running the damn thing.
I will not defend any republican that spends like a drunken sailor and will work as hard to oust them in 2010 as I will a fiscally irresponsible democrat.
Concerning McCain… I’m no fan of McCain. He’s way to liberal for my tastes but I did like his choice of Sarah Palin. A real breath of fresh air there. Must be all those moose burgers over an open campfire.
@ B-Rob
Concerning your scenerio of health care options for an individual wanting to work for a start-up you ask that I first put aside political philosophy. This is where you miss the boat completely.
It is NOT the federal governments job or responsibility to provide health care to anyone, nor is it within its constitutional powers.
I guess i just can’t get past ignoring the constitution, regardless of how attractive government run health care is to someone when it is provided at someone elses expense.
I highly suggest you read “The Law” by Frederik Bastiat
B-Rob, Howdy. I’m a little busy on the other side of the world right now but keep on using my name in vain. I normally ignore angry little men and fools but You just got all the attention can I spare clowns like you today. I normally run a cattle operation in Montana and pay more in taxes than guys like you make in a year. But thanks for p*ssing on my boots. They are a little dusty right now in Helmand Province. But I’m spending Your Tax Dollars prudently.
Re: Your Hero Obama, I Salute the Office and NOT the Man.
I salute obama when he comes on TV, but with only one finger. 😉
@B-Rob:
Like I said, he signed it even after promising not to sign any bill with earmarks.
Six positions is not cause for alarm, the Dem Senate blocked Bush CABINET positions. He was also still operating with Clinton national security holdovers when 911 hit. I even recall a couple of recess appointments Bush made do to the dems blocking his picks. Then to prevent that from happening again Dem senators did a round robin in the Senate chambers during holidays to prevent recess appointments.
To bad the Reps can’t put holds on czars:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/
The foreign is reporting on what the leadership is saying. He’s not respected or trusted.
Throwing mud on these people doesn’t make Obama’s star shine any brighter, middle school tactics. As far as Obama “trying to be the same kind of transformative figure” as Reagan “as opposed to “Carter’s second term.” Let’s take Iran.
Reagan said:
“Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit.”
“A people free to choose, will always choose peace.”
“Coersion, after all merely captures man, freedom captivates.”
“No arsenol…is so formidable as the will and courage of free men and women.”
“Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.”
and…”Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government devised by man.”
What stand did Obama take when the Iranians were begging for help from free nations when attempting freedom? A shameful stance, far from what Reagan would have ever done, Obama took the side of the mullahs and the crooked government because he didn’t want to lose his chance to woo them with his oratory. What’s going on in Iran now, they’ve gotten stronger, bolder, Carter gave them their first boost and Obama is carrying on where Jimmah left off.
How about the missile shield?
“Peace through strength.”
Domestic issues?
“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”
“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”
“Government doesn’t solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
“Government tends to not solve problems, only to rearrange them.”
“Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other.”
Very Palineaque. Entrepreneurs/small business, COC were noticibly absent from the Obama Jobs Summit…had to make room for SEIU. This is not transformative nor Reaganesque.
Back to Reagan:
“Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible do almost all the domestic growth in the United States.”
Oh yes, Obama is the UnReagan, Palin is far closer, she must have paid attention to history even though she didn’t attend Ivy League schools, but, neither did Reagan.
Reagan also knew what his responsibility to the people was:
“Government’s first duty is to protect people, not run their lives.”
Reagan, in spite of the howls from the left, managed to thwart Russia and get that wall torn down to free a people held in bondage under communism, Obama managed to give up the missile shield to Russia, now the freedom those people fought and died for is under threat.
I don’t know what chart you saw, the one I saw has Obama sitting on the bottom and he’s also still trending down in MSM polls. And, you might want to check in on some of the conservative/liberal/independant polling. Those “cons” aren’t doing so bad, they’re making the libs look quite enemic. In Rep/Dem/Ind polling, the Indies are leaving the dems and aligning with the Reps. Go figure, wonder why.
@Patvann:
She’s blown my eyebrows off so many times, I now have to pencil in the remaining stubbles.
@B-Rob
It has struck me as a bit odd that you don’t seem to post on the weekends. I also noted that the other day you had to “sign-off”. Was it quitting time? Do you write your posts while at work, or is this your work?
Of course I am making some brash assumptions here but in my world … people that accept a paycheck from an employer while spending their time writing comments on a blog are theives. But then again wealth re-distribution is theft, so if one supports those kind of policies then I imagine stealing from an employer through misuse of time is not a great leap.
During my time at Boeing I had numerous liberal acquaintances that spent an inordinate amount of time surfing the web, writing personal emails, and in general, screwing off. Now I’m not saying that these activities don’t also occur amongst less liberal individuals but, what I found most interesting was their angst over the quantity and frequency of achievement awards that I received (I came to work to work). If they knew what kind of raises I was getting compared to them I’m sure that they would have been appoplectic.
One of the more vocal individuals, and one of the most liberal people I’ve ever met, was a real case study. He was our TOC (theory of constraints) guru. Boeing had spent an appreciable amount of money sending this individual to seminars, and conferences. His job was to champion the implementation of throughput managment in a manufacturing process. He attended all the meetings, made the pre-requisite noise about the value of the program but interestingly when it came time to actually implement the program and oversee the process this individual would become as scarce as hens teeth.
Change involves risk, and when your dealing with changing mult-million dollar processes, there is the risk that even the best processes will be met with resistance and possibly fail, not because the new process is bad but because people don’t like change. One day , while I was discussing his apparent absence when program implementation was in full swing I asked him why, and in a moment of candor he admitted that he did not want to be part of a failed program. This struck me as classical; be a part of the herd, don’t stand out and reap the rewards of those that actually perform while doing as much as possible to not be seen as a cause/part of any potential failure.
Now I’ve kinda been rambling on about the kind of people that, in my experience, the left seems to attract to its ranks, which brings me back to your start-up venture/health care scenerio.
You laid out three scenes
1. The individual made 40,000 and had 10,000 in health care benefits
2. The individual would make 42,000 and have stock options and pay for his own health insurance
3. The individual would make 42,000, have stock options and the public would pay for his health care.
You state:
Where exactly is the risk in getting a 2,000 raise with stock options and publicly funded health care? It seems to me that you are advocating for the reward without any risk. This individual is married and has children. Is he the sole bread winner with a stay at home wife, this would almost be considered an anomolly in to todays world? If the reward, a $2,000 raise plus stock options is worth it then why doesn’t the wife go to work and provide the health insurance through her employer? Sometimes the order of the day is sacrifice in order to have something better in the future. The “instant gratification” generation seems unwilling to sacrifice anything for a future benefit.
If, instead of a public option the Government got the hell out of the way of insurance companies offering policies across state lines and quit requiring mandatory coverage for certain proceedures, it is much more likely that this individual could find a catastophic health care plan with a high deductible (say $2000 to $5000) that was affordable. Competition would keep the price down. The more government gets involved the more they screw things up to the point that they create new programs/regulations attempting to fix the problems that their previous regulations created. Which in turn create more issues that need a new fix, ad infinitum.
I have started several successful businesses over the course of my life and regularly help others start their own business ventures. In order to be in business I have had to take a lot of risks. One does the very best that they can to minimize risk but it is always there. People are taught that in order to be successful they must go to school, get a job. I don’t call that success I call that secure.. and they are only secure for as long as they have their job. The biggest financial crisis that i have faced in my life is when i have relied on the big companies with all the benefits. Unfortunately when they lay people off, they lay of thousands at a time and headcounts and departments get slashed regardless of the quality or quantity of work that the individual does. Over the course of time I have learned that true success is based on the ability to be self reliant. A good job is only the illusion of success for it can be snatched from you at a moments notice.
There was a period a few years back where I was starting a new venture, my wife was working for a contractor to a government contractor. They promised benefits as soon as her security clearance was approved. Bunglers that they were they “lost” the paperwork three times. During that period we had no insurance, she became ill and required a week long hospital stay and major sugery. Total bill came to a bit over $30,000. Contrary to liberal assertions that people are dying because they don’t have insurance, she is now fully recovered. When people ask me about the financial hardship having such a large bill creates I smile and note that a Cadillace costs more than her surgery and the ride isn’t near as good. And then I gladly make my monthly payment to the hospital.
@Donald Bly: You noticed that too hunh Donald? I just figured he gets paid by ACORN or SEIU to spend his work days online dropping the latest George Soros line on us (notice how upset he gets when you mention the name of his master).
Helpful analysis , I Appreciate the points . Does someone know if I would be able to get ahold of a blank GA DDS Form DDS-18 version to type on ?