Really? Then why the shot at Palin?

 

Sometimes I can't help myself when it comes to Mrs. Palin. Guilty as charged.

Throw him in there. All it does is prove my point.

 

How so?

 

 

My point is that there seems to be no direct correlation between a POTUS business experience and the economy.

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by mcpapa
No edit here - hit "edit" instead of "quote" button

So, let's say for argument's sake that we had a President who had lots of prior business experience but under his watch the economy went into the crapper and the nation was facing serious fiscal issues at the end of his term. Am I wrong to have a bit of a jaundiced eye and not take so much stock in the business experience of those running the next time around?

To the questions in the OP:

 

I highly value proven and successful leadership experience first and foremost. It's important to me whether it comes from govt, business, civic or military experience. Being able to successfully run a private business is evidence of that leadership. The financial statements may be different, but the need for the ability to listen to all positions, work with those that feel differently than you, find consensus, and treat those who won't get on board with respect, is the same.

 

I value Romney's business experience because it is extremely important in these economic times that the private business leaders have to connect with and have trust in the President. They have to believe that the President will sincerely listen to them; will plot a course for this country that is not anti-business; and will not throw them under the bus every time the President wants to score points with Joe Lunchbox.

 

I do believe that his business experience will help him, Congress and the country manage the economic recovery better than someone that doesn't have that experience. That is an issue that Reagan, Clinton and Bush didn't have to deal with to the degree that our next president will have to deal with it, so any thoughts of "they didn't have it, why is it important now?" seems to me ignoring the you know what in the punchbowl.

 

I will partly agree. I fully agree with your first statement and think IT is the key and not WHERE that leadership came from.

 

I would wholeheartedly disagree that President Clinton didn't face a similar economy when he took over. Yet, with no business experience, the economy was positive during his tenure.

 

That leads me to believe that the requirement of "business experience" is misguided. Some have had it in spades yet the economy didn't do well. Others had none and the economy flourished. I fail to see a direct correlation.

:thumb: Clyde taking shots is allowed.

 

I sometimes can't resist when it's so easy. It's an admitted weakness.

So, let's say for argument's sake that we had a President who had lots of prior business experience but under his watch the economy went into the crapper and the nation was facing serious fiscal issues at the end of his term. Am I wrong to have a bit of a jaundiced eye and not take so much stock in the business experience of those running the next time around?

 

Would you be wrong? Heck, I don't know. I'd suggest that before you judged every candidate that came to the table touting economic experience, you should ask whether the prior President tried to enact policies that could have prevented or lessened the economic decline; if he didn't, what stopped him from doing so (lack of interest, other pressing national interests, lack of cooperation from Congress, etc.); whether the current candidate has different/ better business experience than the former President and whether such could result in different results; whether the mood of Congress and the nation is now different than it was when the former President was in office; whether due to personality or style differences the current candidate may be better able to work with Congress to enact the changes/policies needed to help stimulate the economy, just to mention a few questions that I think would be germane to the issue. I'm not big on stereotyping anyone. Just because one former President with business experience was at the helm during an economic decline does not mean that everyperson elected President with prior business experience will be ineffective in dealing with the economy.

I sometimes can't resist when it's so easy. It's an admitted weakness.

 

Or a light on one's soul.

I will partly agree. I fully agree with your first statement and think IT is the key and not WHERE that leadership came from.

 

I would wholeheartedly disagree that President Clinton didn't face a similar economy when he took over. Yet, with no business experience, the economy was positive during his tenure.

 

That leads me to believe that the requirement of "business experience" is misguided. Some have had it in spades yet the economy didn't do well. Others had none and the economy flourished. I fail to see a direct correlation.

 

Agreed. Runing a peanut farm or a baseball team doesn't seem to have translated into either Presidential effectiveness or good economic times.

Or a light on one's soul.

 

Again, guilty as charged. It's my cross to bear.

Would you be wrong? Heck, I don't know. I'd suggest that before you judged every candidate that came to the table touting economic experience, you should ask whether the prior President tried to enact policies that could have prevented or lessened the economic decline; if he didn't, what stopped him from doing so (lack of interest, other pressing national interests, lack of cooperation from Congress, etc.); whether the current candidate has different/ better business experience than the former President and whether such could result in different results; whether the mood of Congress and the nation is now different than it was when the former President was in office; whether due to personality or style differences the current candidate may be better able to work with Congress to enact the changes/policies needed to help stimulate the economy, just to mention a few questions that I think would be germane to the issue. I'm not big on stereotyping anyone. Just because one former President with business experience was at the helm during an economic decline does not mean that everyperson elected President with prior business experience will be ineffective in dealing with the economy.

 

I think you just summarized my point. Lots of factors.

Would you be wrong? Heck, I don't know. I'd suggest that before you judged every candidate that came to the table touting economic experience, you should ask whether the prior President tried to enact policies that could have prevented or lessened the economic decline; if he didn't, what stopped him from doing so (lack of interest, other pressing national interests, lack of cooperation from Congress, etc.); whether the current candidate has different/ better business experience than the former President and whether such could result in different results; whether the mood of Congress and the nation is now different than it was when the former President was in office; whether due to personality or style differences the current candidate may be better able to work with Congress to enact the changes/policies needed to help stimulate the economy, just to mention a few questions that I think would be germane to the issue. I'm not big on stereotyping anyone. Just because one former President with business experience was at the helm during an economic decline does not mean that everyperson elected President with prior business experience will be ineffective in dealing with the economy.

 

Can't argue with that at all. The point of the thread (prior business experience in and of itself doesn't seem to be a determinant of effectiveness as POTUS) seems reasonable to me.

Boeing was not allowed to open their plant in SC because of a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board.

 

And this is reflects the President's business sense how?

Note: forgot to quote Clyde's post in post number 34.

 

Since we agree on the leadership aspect, do you think that Obama has been able to effectively lead Congress and this nation?

 

As to the business experience aspect, do you believe that it is important that the business leaders feel that whomever is President understands private business and is pro-business? Do you believe that the business leaders think Romney understands private business and is pro business, and if they do, does his experience in running Blaine Capital play a role in such thinking? Do you think that business leaders think that President Obama understands private business and is pro-business?

I think you just summarized my point. Lots of factors.

 

Then should we look at those factors and apply them to President Obama, Romney and Gingrich?

I will partly agree. I fully agree with your first statement and think IT is the key and not WHERE that leadership came from.

 

I would wholeheartedly disagree that President Clinton didn't face a similar economy when he took over. Yet, with no business experience, the economy was positive during his tenure.

That leads me to believe that the requirement of "business experience" is misguided. Some have had it in spades yet the economy didn't do well. Others had none and the economy flourished. I fail to see a direct correlation.

 

Out of a recession when he took office, heading into a recession when he left office.