quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

Has a community organizer president been good for the community?

quote:

Has a community organizer president been good for the community?

quote:

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

quote:

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Historian Robert S. McElvaine says no. While it sounds intuitive that a businessman would have the surest handling of the economy, the data suggest otherwise.

quote:

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

. . .

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

Complete essay at The Washington Post

Thoughts? Perhaps the skills that work in business are different from those needed in government?

Has a community organizer president been good for the community?

quote:

In the current situation business experience (or good understanding of the economy) is crucial to lead the country out of economic disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
A hijack in post two. That's gotta be a record.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

That's as spurious as one can get. It's hard to create any large quantity of jobs in an economy where unemployment was low.

quote:

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign’s narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain’s returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation’s sputtering engines of capitalism.

Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.

That is the modus operandi of the leveraged-buyout business, and in an honest free-market economy, there wouldn’t be much scope for it because it creates little of economic value. But we have a rigged system—a regime of crony capitalism—where the tax code heavily favors debt and capital gains, and the central bank purposefully enables rampant speculation by propping up the price of financial assets and battering down the cost of leveraged finance.

. . .

The Bain Capital investments here reviewed accounted for $1.4 billion or 60 percent of the fund’s profits over 15 years, by my calculations. Four of them ended in bankruptcy; one was an inside job and fast flip; one was essentially a massive M&A brokerage fee; and the seventh and largest gain—the Italian Job—amounted to a veritable freak of financial nature.

In short, this is a record about a dangerous form of leveraged gambling that has been enabled by the failed central banking and taxing policies of the state. That it should be offered as evidence that Mitt Romney is a deeply experienced capitalist entrepreneur and job creator is surely a testament to the financial deformations of our times.

Complete article at Newsweek

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

That's as spurious as one can get. It's hard to create any large quantity of jobs in an economy where unemployment was low.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

That's as spurious as one can get. It's hard to create any large quantity of jobs in an economy where unemployment was low.

Low unemployment under GWB........ Are you serious ? The number reached record highs on his watch and Obama inherited these.

From may 2008 to may 2009 they shot up by four million and kept going up that year. Obama has stabalised them and grought them down by 2 million from 2009 until now, and that in an economic crisis.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

As for Romney, his philosophy, is he likes to fire people. I wouldnt expect much job creation there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

That's as spurious as one can get. It's hard to create any large quantity of jobs in an economy where unemployment was low.

Low unemployment under GWB........ Are you serious ? The number reached record highs on his watch and Obama inherited these.

From may 2008 to may 2009 they shot up by four million and kept going up that year. Obama has stabalised them and grought them down by 2 million from 2009 until now, and that in an economic crisis.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

As for Romney, his philosophy, is he likes to fire people. I wouldnt expect much job creation there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Considering the President created more jobs in his 1st year than in all of bush`s 8......the answer would be yes.

That's as spurious as one can get. It's hard to create any large quantity of jobs in an economy where unemployment was low.

Low unemployment under GWB........ Are you serious ? The number reached record highs on his watch and Obama inherited these.

From may 2008 to may 2009 they shot up by four million and kept going up that year. Obama has stabalised them and grought them down by 2 million from 2009 until now, and that in an economic crisis.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

As for Romney, his philosophy, is he likes to fire people. I wouldnt expect much job creation there.

May 2008 to May 2009 is hardly the totality of Bush's 8 years in office. Reread all the above. Do you see your mistake?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Wow! That's some amazing math!