quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

The problem in the US isn't Capitalism. What we have is better described as "Corporatism." Hiring on a solid business person wouldn't lead to a train wreck, necessarily.

While your assertion may be true on its face, historically, it always has been a disaster when we've elected business leaders to lead the nation. I pointed that out on my first post in this thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You may think that, but the leading business lights of the last two decades have been found wanting. Why would they be able to lead a nation any better ?

Good point. Whenever I hear someone say, "We should run the government like a business," I always think, "Okey-dokey. Enron or Worldcom?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

No one has EVER quoted me as saying G dub was a great Prez.

He kept us out of harms way, .

DAFUQ?

How many thousand of our people died by hostile action during Dubya's presidency?

A lot.

But you're still here....I'm still here....and the men and women who do that horrible job....some aren't.

And I'm very thankful, every day, they feel that's an important job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

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?

Debt by Prez (or by affiliation):

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Okay, well if you're going to bring out the voodoo economics stuff

But yes, this makes me think - balanced budget - shouldn't a successful businessman understand that concept?

Well, let me rephrase. Shouldn't a smart businessman understand that concept? Oh, sorry, I forgot we were talking about people like GW Bush. It's that smart/successful distinction again...dang....

I have nothing more to add....

Hey, contrary to the pop tarts that seem to want to imbue in me all things Republican....the stats show that Republicans again, (as I stated in a previous long ago post), with the exception of the current anomaly, which the current Prez inherited (knowingly) spend more than Dems.

And that's a known, publicized fact.

So...all you haters that seem to want to spew "JJ thinks Republicans are watching your back, they're Gods and Dems are shit for brains and always spend more"....I never said that, nor would any right thinking intelligent human on Earth.

Knowing the facts.