Quantcast
Opinion

Business experience needed in the White House

Comments

Return To Article
  • GK Willington SLC, UT
    July 8, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    per patriot (8:57 a.m. July 5)... Curious? So you long for more casino capitalism from another POTUS w/ an IVY League MBA?

    Don't know about the rest of you but I'll pass on another term brought to us by the letter W.

  • Mister J SLC, UT
    July 8, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    So Mike (8:30 p.m. July 5, 2012)... I am anxious to get your 2 cents on GOP obstructionism?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2012 1:10 p.m.

    @VST
    I think when he said 80 years he meant roughly 80 years and was suggesting that Obama inherited the worst situation since FDR.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    @patriot
    "Business experience + Governor Experience VS NO experience."

    Um... Obama has the most valuable experience there is, he IS the president and has 3.5 years and counting of experience there.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    A businessman works to get profits for his shareholder. He doesn't care about creating jobs in his company. He doesn't care about what what his business means for all the other businesses. We've had only a few businessmen in the White House but they include the Bushes and Hoover. A President has to look out for ALL Americans. Romney has not given any real examples as to how his private sector experience is a benefit. He's been vague on policy (if not outright flipping around positions like how suddenly he's stopped talking about self-deportation) and any Republican can say they want tax cuts and deregulation. So what makes Romney so special?

  • George Bronx, NY
    July 6, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    @patriot
    no experience? who was our president for the past four years? I think I will take one term presidential experience over one term experience as a governor, thanks.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 6, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    wrz
    Read the Paul Ryan plan. It calls for immediate, massive cuts in spending. No way attrition accomplishes anywhere close to the reductions the plan calls for. Romney's just saying 'attrition' for political purposes--in fact, his plans will immediately increase unemployment by a minimum of 3 percent.
    Net job creation under Obama? Not great, but positive, around 240,000 new private sector jobs created per month. Considering that we're in a recession, that's pretty good. Why is the unemployment rate so high? Public sector job losses. Teachers and cops and firefighters laid off. State and local governments have been subjected to austerity plus. Which, obviously, isn't the fault of the federal government. You say public sector jobs pay twice that of private sector jobs? Sorry, not true. You can cherrypick a few instances of overpaid public employees (California prison guards), but do you personally know any cops? Or teachers? Or EMTs? Rolling in the dough, are they?
    Auto industry. He saved millions of jobs. You say creditors and shareholders got next to nothing. Nothing is exactly what they would have gotten without federal intervention.
    Reduce nuclear stockpiles? Uh, remember the START treaty?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 6, 2012 7:08 a.m.

    Business experience is certainly a good quality in a president.
    Although it did not seem important for Reagan. Or when the party nominated McCain.

    However, the GOP has dictated what can and cannot be done.

    Romneys experience will only be valued when it is lock step in line with what the GOP already believes. Any deviation, whether based on prior experience or not, is NOT tolerated.

    Not that it will be a problem as he has shown that his opinion is too easily molded to fit anything and everything the GOP demands.

    So, what good is his experience?

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2012 12:04 a.m.

    @one old man:

    "little two-letter word: NO! There's the explanation. Right there."

    No, Obamacare is a good thing.

    @Eric Samuelsen:

    "That plan calls for massive cuts in government spending, which means, in practical terms, laying off hundreds of thousands of government workers."

    Wrong! Romney's plan is to reduce government employment through attrition. Not layoffs.

    "So the idea is that, in order to increase employment, you first decrease employment."

    Wrong again. You have to clear out dead wood. Romney created a net 100,000 jobs for Americans. How many net jobs over his 3 1/2 years did Obama create? None.

    "We can't really let our country fail."

    And it will, with four more Obama years.

    "Saving the auto industry..."

    He turned most of the ownership over to his friends, the auto workers' unions. Stockholders and creditors got virtually nothing.

    "...reforming health care..."

    Heavens to Murgatroyd!

    "...reducing nuclear weapons..."

    Where did you hear that? Never happened.

    "Private sector job growth suggests a successful presidency."

    Of which he has achieved a net of zero, nada.

    "Public sector layoffs have sabotaged him."

    Public sector jobs have bloated state and federal budgets with wages double private sector levels.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    @Roland:

    "No President in eighty years has faced as tough a challenge as President Obama has faced."

    The president had the challenge but did little or nothing about it. His driving direction is and has always been, to transform America into a socialist country with his redistribution of wealth and his government healthcare. He has succeeded to some degree. But that's not what America is about. America is about creativity and freedom, to name two. Government control of of our lives kills freedom and creativity.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 5, 2012 8:30 p.m.

    We can be mesmerized by Obama's words, or we can see through him and his empty "ra, ra" comments.

    What has he done to put Americas back to work - even though he has raided OUR treasury for $5,000,000,000,000 in his term he has created NO NEW JOBS. he doesn't know how to create jobs. He resorts to "ra, ra, ra" - only we're no longer cheering for him.

    The court told us that Obama lied to us. We know that he stole two car companies from their shareholders. He claims that as a victory. We know that he "loaned" $2,000,000,000 to Gerge Soros from OUR treasury. He claims that George Bush did it.. We know that he gave his friends at Solyndra $500,000,000 - money which was wasted. Do we have to accept his raiding of the treasury.

    No more "ra, ra, ra".

    Empty promises and empty performance equals a one term presidency.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 5, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    So if I follow this logic, Outsourcing jobs to overseas entities is responsible management, which Bain oversaw companies who used this practice, therefor, the outsourcing of American government jobs to India and China is what is going to make us a strong country again? The fact that we have lost much of our steel production to China... that we have lost much of our energy production capability to overseas, and now the ideal candidate is one who would also send basic government services overseas is what Wall Street fans want us to do next. Does national security and sustainability ever enter the picture here.

    And this "community organizer" label that writer like this like to through around. It was not Obama's day time job. Obama doing work for community organizations for even decades makes him a community organizer than does Romney's religious callings for the same period make him an evangelical preacher.

    I do think that Romeny could bring a new era of streamlined and efficient government into play. I agree he is qualified for that work. But being President is ever so much more than just being a manager. And in that, I have my doubts.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    July 5, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    Ok, I'll try this again. I'll skip the use of asterisks to make my point.

    I find common ground with Roland Kayser's comment in that I agree that a Romney presidency would be nothing more than a Bush III administration. You need only to look at his circle of advisors and his statements. For instance, this is what he said about former vice-president Dick Cheney late last year:

    "I think it was last weekend I was watching C-SPAN and I saw Vice President Dick Cheney and he was being asked questions about a whole host of issues: following 9/11, the affairs in various countries in the world.

    "And I listened to him speak and said whether you agree or disagree with him, this is a man of wisdom and judgment and he could have been President of the United States. That's the kind of person I'd like to have - a person of wisdom and judgment."

    Do you need any more proof than that?

    Where I differ from Roland is on voting. I think I'll follow the advice of P.J. O'Rourke's book Don't Vote It Just Encourages [them].

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 5, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    The basic premise of this article is fundamentally flawed. Businessmen compete. They want their businesses to compete, and don't mind if others fail. To some extent, governors do the same--they want to attract businesses to their states, away from others. But the President has to want all businesses to succeed.
    What we know of Romney's plans are, in essence, the Paul Ryan plan, which he's signed on to. That plan calls for massive cuts in government spending, which means, in practical terms, laying off hundreds of thousands of government workers. So the idea is that, in order to increase employment, you first decrease employment. Explain how that makes sense. This ties to Romney's work at Bain--laying people off to make companies more efficient. In business, sometimes this works, sometimes businesses fail. We can't really let our country fail.
    As for the complaint that President Obama hasn't done anything during his four years in office, balderdash. Saving the auto industry, reforming health care, reducing nuclear weapons here and abroad would be three amazing achievements for any president. Private sector job growth suggests a successful presidency. Public sector layoffs have sabotaged him.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 5, 2012 11:10 a.m.

    I'm going with four years presidential experience versus none.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 5, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    wrz -- Why didn't Obama get us out of the mess President Cheney left for him?

    Have you ever heard of the GOP wing of Congress that has a one-word vocabulary?

    A little two-letter word: "NO!"

    There's the explanation. Right there.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 5, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    Alfred, please explain exactly how things have gotten worse around the world? I thought things had actually improved a whole lot since Cheney and Bush left office. Some specifics would be nice to back up your claim.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser:

    "No President in eighty years has faced as tough a challenge as President Obama has faced."

    He certainly knew of the tough challenges ahead when he ran. So, why did he even both? He's done nothing to fix the problems in his 3 1/2 years in office. All we heard from him was 'hope and change.' All we hear now is: 'It's George's fault.'

    "Plus we were engulfed in two very unpopular wars. Given that perspective, I think he has done okay, not great, but okay."

    He said he would get us out... and we're still there. What happened?

    "I have heard nothing from Romney to dissuade me from thinking that he would be G.W. Bush's third term."

    And what have we heard from Obama lately? Not even his ethereal 'hope and change.'

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 5, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    There is no mention in this article of the wars placed on a hidden credit card by President Cheney and his little buddy.

    There is no mention of the incredible increase in government spending and debt under the Cheney administration.

    There is no mention of the lack of government oversight and regulation of greed industries in Wall Street and large banks.

    There is no mention of all the jobs people like Mitt have sent overseas.

    There is no mention of the fact that the rate of government spending increase under Obama is the LOWEST it has been since the hallowed days of St. Ronald the Reagan.

    There is no mention of the power of corporations and their lobbyists to control our government.

    There are many other important facts being overlooked in this obviously partisan propaganda piece.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 5, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    Patriot, who has NO experience?

    I'll take the Obama experience any day over what Mitt is offering -- if anyone can figure out what that actually is.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    July 5, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    re: patriot 8:57 a.m. July 5, 2012

    Ivy League pinhead vs Ivy league pinhead. I'll go w/ Richard Pryor's sentiments in Brewster's Millions.

  • Alfred Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    "The fact is, the most qualified person four years ago was Hillary Clinton, as she has shown time and again by her masterful job as the nation's top foreign policy official."

    Are you smoking something? Hillary Clinton is mediocre at best. All she does is stand up and give a short speech about some issue. In fact, things have gotten even worse around the world since she was installed as Secretary of State under Obama.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 5, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    Business experience + Governor Experience VS NO experience. You decide.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 5, 2012 8:56 a.m.

    All the problems of the world are caused by the greed of people. Not surprising when you consider that all people are driven by greed. Greed being the natural expression of the basic need to survive, which is inherent in every living thing in the world.

    Governments are created to do those things that the people who created the government cannot of don’t want to do for themselves. We think of good governments as those who benefit the people governed. Poor governments are those who only benefit the few. Poor governments are generally created in a top-down manner by tyrants and dictators, or even by a small powerful minority.

    Businesses are like governments in their mission and purpose, but are all of the top-down distinction. Their main reason for creation is the benefit of the few. They are always dictatorial and seldom put consideration on the welfare of people who are workers, consumers and effected others.

    Business experience, training and indoctrination are not the best for being a administer of government to benefit people in general. Business tends to reward the expression of greed, good government tends to repress greed in favor of overall gain.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 5, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    So the writer is in essence calling for direct intervention into the economy by the government. It's funny how the Republicans want government out of the way, then in practice do just the opposite. Bush is a perfect example, giving us the Wall Street and auto bailouts, then handing it to Obama to face the wrath of the far right. Geez....

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 5, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    After my second reading of the article, I see that the headline doesn't necessarily match the content of the article. But the author has carried on that time honored tradition of belittling the work of communicty organizers.

    Wikipedia includes this as part of their definition, "Community organizers generally seek to build groups that are democratic in governance, open and accessible to community members, and concerned with the general health of the community rather than a specific interest group. Organizing seeks to broadly empower community members, with the end goal of distributing power more equally throughout the community.

    That sounds more like the skills needed in the White House than the definition Wiki gives for a businessman, "...someone involved in a particular undertaking of activities, commercial or industrial, for the purpose of generating revenue from a combination of human, financial, and physical capital."

    Give me the community organizer any day.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    July 5, 2012 5:42 a.m.

    "...Obama has fallen back on the time-tested campaign tactic of noting that most of the blame for his failures in the first term resides with his predecessor."

    Well duh! Imagine coming into office and taking over the presidency from someone who took a balanced budget and turned it into a trillion dollar a year deficit. Imagine inheriting two wars that were started without any attempt to pay for them. Imagine having to fix a foreign relations nightmare created by your predecessor whose policies promoted torture and rendition. Then imagine hearing the Senate leader of the opposing party state that his most important goal was to see that you were not re-elected and worst of all, then leading the members of his party in the House and Senate in carrying out that wish. Oh, and by the way, the economy that you inherited was losing 900,000 jobs a month.

    Now the economy is moving the opposite way with new jobs. Our foreign relations have improved immensely and we are in the process of winding down the second war after ending the first. George Bush was a business man and a governor. Just what the auther is asking for.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 5, 2012 12:09 a.m.

    No President in eighty years has faced as tough a challenge as President Obama has faced. When he entered office the economy was declining faster than it did at any point during the Great Depression. Plus we were engulfed in two very unpopular wars. Given that perspective, I think he has done okay, not great, but okay.

    I have heard nothing from Romney to dissuade me from thinking that he would be G.W. Bush's third term. Given that the first two were unmitigated disasters, I'll stick with Obama.