Payrolls Plunge To 88K, Biggest Miss Since Dec 2009, Part Rate At New 30 yr low

Quote from Ricter:

The business background of our former presidents is well documented and, I would think, non-controversial. So it's the other major premise behind the assertion that would likely be challenged.


Except for JFK and "maybe" Clinton", the CP (career politician) category included more failures than successes, especially in the modern era. Seriously, you can't count either of the Bushes (being in a league of their own). He hasn't proved anything with the article, other than military service may be a plus, in some cases.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

History currently being written shows affirmative action unqualified community organizers make bad presidents as well.

Career Politician category: This one is slated for failure, big-time.
 
Quote from budcampbell:

Career Politician category: This one is slated for failure, big-time.
I think a bet on expert analysis of Obama, published 20 and more years from now, calling him a good president is a safe bet. Since you don't like his politics, though, you'll disagree.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I think a bet on expert analysis of Obama, published 20 and more years from now, calling him a good president is a safe bet. Since you don't like his politics, though, you'll disagree.


I am of the opinion he won't finish his second term. But that is what makes a crap game, so to speak. There is definitely a "hedge" around him.
 

Since Ricter has opted out of clarifying his statement (surprise), I'll go off the article you offered up. Thank you for that, by the way.

The article you posted doesn't really state any case either way as to whether businessmen make good presidents or not. It's actually an article about whether or not Romney would make (have made) a good president because of his business experience. The conclusion to that argument is:

So, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Romney's past business success means he will be a good president.

I am fine with the conclusion, as there is no evidence either way. I also agree with pointing out that George W Bush wasn't really a good businessman, he just had connections. Apart from that, the article makes a good case for pointing out some non-businessmen who were supposedly high ranked presidents (it's important to note that they were high ranked according to "Scholars" but that doesn't mean they were good presidents).

Regardless, if the supposed "good presidents" were all non-businessmen, and career politicians or Washington insiders, and we're in the mess we are, then perhaps we should consider putting someone in without ties to Washington, and someone who is NOT a career politician. Insanity of doing something over and over and expecting different results, and all that.
 
Quote from Ricter:

I think a bet on expert analysis of Obama, published 20 and more years from now, calling him a good president is a safe bet....
Only if someone in the leftist media is doing the "analyzing".
 
Quote from Ricter:

I think a bet on expert analysis of Obama, published 20 and more years from now, calling him a good president is a safe bet. Since you don't like his politics, though, you'll disagree.

Expert liberal analysis, maybe. Even that might be a long shot. This grand experiment you support won't make it 20 years. And someone will have to take the fall on that once all the dirt comes out.
 
Quote from Ricter:

That's because you have an apocalyptic mindset.

The statistics nationally on the economic front ain't pretty and could be construed as pre-apocalyptic. Looks like Bernanke is preparing to get the "hell out of dodge" before the food stamp rolls grow ever-larger, requiring the printing of more monopoly money. They are lying about employment and hiring, plain and simple. I wish the reality was different, but it isn't.
 
Back
Top