Business People As Political Leaders

[metis]

Generally speaking, the history of having business leaders as presidents and governors is not good, and let me use our glorious Governor Snyder here in Michigan as just one example.

Here is what has happened with a Republican program called "MIDAS" and what it has done to so many of the unemployed who have applied for benefits only to be rejected and then threatened with fines w/o any evidence they're done wrong. When some of them reapplied, over 90% were finally accepted, but many others ended up paying fines that they were not found guilty of, so the state of Michigan actually made millions of dollars off these poor people: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's MIDAS program had a 93% error rate and falsely accused 20,000 workers of unemployment fraud

And here's another article dealing with the Snyder administration creating the Flint water crisis: Michigan Attorney General Brings More Criminal Charges Over Water Crisis

And here's how "successful" Snyder's appointment of "emergency mangers" that he's used to take over some city governments and school districts, thus negating local elections: U.S. Rep. to Snyder: Emergency manager law brought Flint 'to its knees'

As even mentioned by Republican Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", running a state or a nation is not the same as running a business, and many cannot or don't want to make the proper adjustment once elected. Snyder is a case in point whereas "the bottom lone" is $, which makes sense in business dealings but doesn't work well at all when it comes to being the "CEO" of a state or the country. Snyder can easily be the poster-child of why this doesn't work out too often.

And now we have Trump. Need I say more.

 

[Neo Deist]

Generally speaking, the history of having business leaders as presidents and governors is not good, and let me use our glorious Governor Snyder here in Michigan as just one example.

Here is what has happened with a Republican program called "MIDAS" and what it has done to so many of the unemployed who have applied for benefits only to be rejected and then threatened with fines w/o any evidence they're done wrong. When some of them reapplied, over 90% were finally accepted, but many others ended up paying fines that they were not found guilty of, so the state of Michigan actually made millions of dollars off these poor people: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's MIDAS program had a 93% error rate and falsely accused 20,000 workers of unemployment fraud

And here's another article dealing with the Snyder administration creating the Flint water crisis: Michigan Attorney General Brings More Criminal Charges Over Water Crisis

And here's how "successful" Snyder's appointment of "emergency mangers" that he's used to take over some city governments and school districts, thus negating local elections: U.S. Rep. to Snyder: Emergency manager law brought Flint 'to its knees'

As even mentioned by Republican Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", running a state or a nation is not the same as running a business, and many cannot or don't want to make the proper adjustment once elected. Snyder is a case in point whereas "the bottom lone" is $, which makes sense in business dealings but doesn't work well at all when it comes to being the "CEO" of a state or the country. Snyder can easily be the poster-child of why this doesn't work out too often.

And now we have Trump. Need I say more.

Yes, because career politicians have the hearts and minds of the populace.

We are 20 TRILLION in debt because of career politicians. A businessman is exactly what we need right now.

 

[suncowiam]

Generally speaking, the history of having business leaders as presidents and governors is not good, and let me use our glorious Governor Snyder here in Michigan as just one example.

Here is what has happened with a Republican program called "MIDAS" and what it has done to so many of the unemployed who have applied for benefits only to be rejected and then threatened with fines w/o any evidence they're done wrong. When some of them reapplied, over 90% were finally accepted, but many others ended up paying fines that they were not found guilty of, so the state of Michigan actually made millions of dollars off these poor people: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's MIDAS program had a 93% error rate and falsely accused 20,000 workers of unemployment fraud

And here's another article dealing with the Snyder administration creating the Flint water crisis: Michigan Attorney General Brings More Criminal Charges Over Water Crisis

And here's how "successful" Snyder's appointment of "emergency mangers" that he's used to take over some city governments and school districts, thus negating local elections: U.S. Rep. to Snyder: Emergency manager law brought Flint 'to its knees'

As even mentioned by Republican Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", running a state or a nation is not the same as running a business, and many cannot or don't want to make the proper adjustment once elected. Snyder is a case in point whereas "the bottom lone" is $, which makes sense in business dealings but doesn't work well at all when it comes to being the "CEO" of a state or the country. Snyder can easily be the poster-child of why this doesn't work out too often.

And now we have Trump. Need I say more.

I agree with you in principle and theory. State leadership goes beyond economics but there should be a solid background in it or that leader better have a very good financial adviser. A state has little to stand on if it cannot produce. All the grand ideals of living have no means of thriving if there is no foundation to produce and maintain capital.

Concerning your example, it does add to your thesis but I feel it's too small of a sample size. I can't say its conclusive to suggest that a "CEO" can't lead a nation. Keep in mind that I'm not a Trump supporter either.

 

[BSM1]

Generally speaking, the history of having business leaders as presidents and governors is not good, and let me use our glorious Governor Snyder here in Michigan as just one example.

Here is what has happened with a Republican program called "MIDAS" and what it has done to so many of the unemployed who have applied for benefits only to be rejected and then threatened with fines w/o any evidence they're done wrong. When some of them reapplied, over 90% were finally accepted, but many others ended up paying fines that they were not found guilty of, so the state of Michigan actually made millions of dollars off these poor people: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's MIDAS program had a 93% error rate and falsely accused 20,000 workers of unemployment fraud

And here's another article dealing with the Snyder administration creating the Flint water crisis: Michigan Attorney General Brings More Criminal Charges Over Water Crisis

And here's how "successful" Snyder's appointment of "emergency mangers" that he's used to take over some city governments and school districts, thus negating local elections: U.S. Rep. to Snyder: Emergency manager law brought Flint 'to its knees'

As even mentioned by Republican Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", running a state or a nation is not the same as running a business, and many cannot or don't want to make the proper adjustment once elected. Snyder is a case in point whereas "the bottom lone" is $, which makes sense in business dealings but doesn't work well at all when it comes to being the "CEO" of a state or the country. Snyder can easily be the poster-child of why this doesn't work out too often.

And now we have Trump. Need I say more.

You think Joe Scarborough is a Republican?

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, because career politicians have the hearts and minds of the populace.

We are 20 TRILLION in debt because of career politicians. A businessman is exactly what we need right now.

Let's see in 4 years how that goes. I'm pretty sure we will still be in the negative. Just not sure how much Trump will shave from that if at all.

 

[Neo Deist]

Let's see in 4 years how that goes. I'm pretty sure we will still be in the negative. Just not sure how much Trump will shave from that if at all.

We will be in the negative for the next decade or more. What we need is an about face, not full speed ahead, which is what Obama did for us.

 

[JerryL]

Yes, because career politicians have the hearts and minds of the populace.

Generally speaking: Choosing a career in civil service and spending a lifetime interacting with the voters would seem to be a more likely background for someone with "hearts and minds" than the ambition to become wealthy.

We are 20 TRILLION in debt because of career politicians. A businessman is exactly what we need right now.

Well.. an oil man-turned politician. Also an actor-turned-politician... and in both cases that debt was spent on big businesses who had backed said politicians.

The last two career politicians both lowered the deficit; one even turning a surplus.

But do go on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Generally speaking, the history of having business leaders as presidents and governors is not good, and let me use our glorious Governor Snyder here in Michigan as just one example.

Here is what has happened with a Republican program called "MIDAS" and what it has done to so many of the unemployed who have applied for benefits only to be rejected and then threatened with fines w/o any evidence they're done wrong. When some of them reapplied, over 90% were finally accepted, but many others ended up paying fines that they were not found guilty of, so the state of Michigan actually made millions of dollars off these poor people: Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's MIDAS program had a 93% error rate and falsely accused 20,000 workers of unemployment fraud

And here's another article dealing with the Snyder administration creating the Flint water crisis: Michigan Attorney General Brings More Criminal Charges Over Water Crisis

And here's how "successful" Snyder's appointment of "emergency mangers" that he's used to take over some city governments and school districts, thus negating local elections: U.S. Rep. to Snyder: Emergency manager law brought Flint 'to its knees'

As even mentioned by Republican Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe", running a state or a nation is not the same as running a business, and many cannot or don't want to make the proper adjustment once elected. Snyder is a case in point whereas "the bottom lone" is $, which makes sense in business dealings but doesn't work well at all when it comes to being the "CEO" of a state or the country. Snyder can easily be the poster-child of why this doesn't work out too often.

And now we have Trump. Need I say more.

It's easy to cherry pick things you don't like about Snyder.
But he's a darn sight better than his predecessor, Jennifer Granmole (Dem), who left him with the Detroit & Flint messes to clean up. And I don't even like Snyder (too much of a big government guy for me).

A problem with politicians who've never run a business is that they want to tell others how to do it without ever understanding it. Obama is a perfect example of why a president should've had at least some management experience beforehand.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's easy to cherry pick things you don't like about Snyder.
But he's a darn sight better than his predecessor, Jennifer Granmole (Dem), who left him with the Detroit & Flint messes to clean up. And I don't even like Snyder (too much of a big government guy for me).

A problem with politicians who've never run a business is that they want to tell others how to do it without ever understanding it. Obama is a perfect example of why a president should've had at least some management experience beforehand.

What about Ronald McDonald?

 

[Revoltingest]

What about Ronald McDonald?

He says the presidency is beneath him.

 

[Neo Deist]

The last two career politicians both lowered the deficit; one even turning a surplus.

When Obama took office in 2009, the debt was 10.6 trillion. As he is leaving office, the debt is 19.7 Trillion. Not exactly how you call that a surplus, unless you mean for other countries.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, because career politicians have the hearts and minds of the populace.

We are 20 TRILLION in debt because of career politicians. A businessman is exactly what we need right now.

I will be shocked to the point of death if Trump does not increase the debt more than any other President in history.

 

[JerryL]

The last two career politicians both lowered the deficit; one even turning a surplus.

When Obama took office in 2009, the debt was 10.6 trillion. As he is leaving office, the debt is 19.7 Trillion. Not exactly how you call that a surplus, unless you mean for other countries.

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

The surplus was Clinton ($263 billion).

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

 

[JerryL]

I will be shocked to the point of death if Trump does not increase the debt more than any other President in history.

If he follows through on his tax and spend plan, his deficit (increase in debt) should break the record set by GWB.

 

[Neo Deist]

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

The surplus was Clinton ($263 billion).

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

No, our country has almost doubled its debt over Obama's 8 years.

 

[JerryL]

No, our country has almost doubled its debt over Obama's 8 years.

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

 

[Neo Deist]

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

Sigh.

Has our nation's debt nearly doubled under President Obama?

Snippet:

On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office, the gross federal debt (which includes both public and intragovernmental debt) was $10.63 trillion. As of Aug. 3, 2016, it is $19.4 trillion (and now 19.7).

So the numbers check out.

But experts we spoke with still note that the debt cannot be pinned on just Obama. For one thing, Congress signs off on spending and taxation.



You can try and spin the numbers if you like, but there is no hiding the FACT that under Obama, our debt almost doubled.

 

[JerryL]

Sigh.

Has our nation's debt nearly doubled under President Obama?

Since you continue to repeat the same thing without interacting with my response, you continue to get the same response.

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

 

[Neo Deist]

Since you continue to repeat the same thing without interacting with my response, you continue to get the same response.

The deficit dropped from 9.8GDP to 2.8GDP. Or, if you prefer dollars, from $1.4 trillion to $0.5 trillion.

Your choice of "debt" is wrong headed. In centuries; the debt has only gone down once.

You must be a Democrat...

 

[JerryL]

You must be a Democrat...

Now we are name calling? That's pretty desperate.