Some interesting numbers

[AlanM]

Very interesting stats found on another forum.
Links were provided in a later post to back up these numbers.

There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received itwithin six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they arein "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a government job.

Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt.................... 38%
Taft.................................. 40%
Wilson ........................... 52%
Harding........................... 49%
Coolidge......................... 48%
Hoover............................ 42%
F. Roosevelt................... 50%
Truman........................... 50%
Eisenhower................ .... 57%
Kennedy......................... 30%
Johnson.......................... 47%
Nixon.............................. 53%
Ford................................ 42%
Carter............................. 32%
Reagan........................... 56%
GH Bush......................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush........................ 55%
Obama............................ 8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big
corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?
They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

[tursiops]

I've worked in private industry, academia, non-profit, and government. I resent your statement that a government job is not a real job. The government folks I worked with were smart, hard-working, committed, and just plain good people, by-and-large.

I'd say the biggest problem is those who have ONLY worked in the private sector. They often have no understanding of what it means to try and develop policies against insufficient information and political realities. At least in the private sector you have the bottom line as a criterion for success....no such thing in those other kinds of jobs.

By the way, if you do a little fact-checking you'll find that 8% number is pure BS. Here are the bio's of the cabinet. Take a look.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

This is an old email chain-letter, with made-up statistics.

[OakRidgeStars]

This is an old email chain-letter, with made-up statistics.

Pretty sure that's what was also used to draft what we all know as "Obamacare"

After Obama & Co. destroys the greatest health care system in the world, maybe the Canadians will let us sneak across the border for some of that fine, free doctoring.

[AlanM]

From a later post on the other forum:

Supporting info here:

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.co ... nt-of.html

http://news.investors.com/Article/54365 ... -World.htm

http://thecabin.net/interact/opinion/co ... 9s-cabinet

Oh here we go...found the exact link:

Barry Soetoro – Obama’s Cabinet Has Almost NO Business Experience

http://www.morningliberty.com/2010/05/2 ... xperience/

[dorminWS]

try and develop policies against insufficient information and political realities. At least in the private sector you have the bottom line as a criterion for success....no such thing in those other kinds of jobs.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There in your own words you have acknowledged the essence of the proposition stated by the OP. People who work for the government don't operate in the real world with real information and real accountability. That's the biggest reason they are ill-suited to set policy to guide our country and/or it's economy. You are hoist on your own petard, turnips.

[tursiops]

Here is the source article for all this BS.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michae ... binet.html
It is from November 2009, so any blog/site/article that came after that is derivative from it. What is interesting is that the number shown for Obama is NOT 8% but is more like 22% (in 2009), and the author has stated separately that in deriving that number, he chose to IGNORE any prior service as an attorney at a law firm (how is this not the private sector?), and he did NOT include all cabinet positions! His words: "I did not include prior private-sector experience for the following positions: Postmaster General; Navy; War (now Defense); Health, Education & Welfare; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security."
The source article is BS, the blogs based on it are BS plus false statistics, and it would be good for people reading, quoting, and promulgating this stuff to develop a better BS detector. Critical thinking, guys, where is it?

[dorminWS]

Here is the source article for all this BS.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michae ... binet.html
It is from November 2009, so any blog/site/article that came after that is derivative from it. What is interesting is that the number shown for Obama is NOT 8% but is more like 22% (in 2009), and the author has stated separately that in deriving that number, he chose to IGNORE any prior service as an attorney at a law firm (how is this not the private sector?),

................................................................
As a matter of fact, working as an attorney is much more similar to government service than it is a real business that actually produces something, and it is virtually indistinguishable from academia, except for occasional contact with clients; some of whom may be real-world people (but who may be pursuing a something-for-nothing fantasy in any event). The larger the law firm, the more this is true. Even in-house counsel at privately-held companies tend to be isolated from the business environment and constitute an impediment to productivity.
...................................................................

and he did NOT include all cabinet positions! His words: "I did not include prior private-sector experience for the following positions: Postmaster General; Navy; War (now Defense); Health, Education & Welfare; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security."

....................................................................
Two points:
(1) If the percentages were computed the same way for all Presidents, the relative ranks will be the same; i.e., with Obama on the bottom.
(2) even accepting what you say, Obama, at 22%, is still ranked well below all the other Presidents.
....................................................................

The source article is BS, the blogs based on it are BS plus false statistics, and it would be good for people reading quoting, and promulgating this stuff to develop a better BS detector. Critical thinking, guys, where is it?

.....................................................................
I used to have a pretty good BS detector, but the first time I watched Obama make a speech, it rang plumb off the hook and exploded.
.......................................................................

[Kreutz]

Very interesting stats found on another forum.
Links were provided in a later post to back up these numbers.

There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received itwithin six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they arein "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

America has a great healthcare system...if you're healthy. These statistics are meaningless and probably pulled out if thin air. The cancer one alone is telling....what kind of cancer? You have to control for the varying lethality of differing malignancies and treatments offered. Also, not every patient chooses the most aggressive options.

The hip arthroplasty one was funny, Medicare pays for those faaaar more readily than privates, so much for the evil gubbermint trying to kill us all.

The US ranks terribly compared to industrialized nations in healthcare access and outcome.

For profit healthcare insurance is the root cause of our problems. The puppets blathering on about "Obamacare" are so out of touch its tragicomical. Theres a good reason the insurance companies didnt lift a finger to fight it; its the best thing to ever happen to them.

Until we have at least a single payer system, ideally a nationalized one we will continue to lag in healthcare.

Remember, the CEO of your health insurance company has to decide to either pay out more to doctors and hospitals, or keep more in to pay himself.

Guess which they pick?

[dorminWS]

The following has been attributed to Donald Trump:
...................................................................
Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,

by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese ,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?

[Taggure]

The following has been attributed to Donald Trump:
...................................................................
Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,

by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese ,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?

In Short

Not a Thing that I can think of

Well you asked!!

[gatlingun6]

Very interesting stats found on another forum.
Links were provided in a later post to back up these numbers.

There are actually two messages here. The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received itwithin six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they arein "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

And now for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a government job.

Here are the percentages.

T. Roosevelt.................... 38%
Taft.................................. 40%
Wilson ........................... 52%
Harding........................... 49%
Coolidge......................... 48%
Hoover............................ 42%
F. Roosevelt................... 50%
Truman........................... 50%
Eisenhower................ .... 57%
Kennedy......................... 30%
Johnson.......................... 47%
Nixon.............................. 53%
Ford................................ 42%
Carter............................. 32%
Reagan........................... 56%
GH Bush......................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush........................ 55%
Obama............................ 8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big
corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?
They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

********************************************************************************************
Alan M I just love statistics that relegate human beings to a number, a percentage if you will with nothing qualitative to make sense of the number. So what should we make of the Investor's Business Daily's (IVD's) Statistics? Having said that I wonder if the IVD's point was that private business people are better Cabinet officers than non business people.

I suspect that they did not, otherwise supporting documentation would have been referenced. Without it we are left with an elitist assumption that seems to say the competence of an administration can be measured by the percentage of cabinet officers with business experience. There is no empirical evidence anywhere that supports this elitist assumption. A glance at the list shows that President's Harding, Hoover, and Nixon had close to 50% or more of appointees with business experience. Harding's administration was plagued by scandals because of the unethical people he appointed, the same was true of Nixon. Harding and Hoover are generally given the lowest ratings among Presidents. And we all know what happened under Nixon. So does this prove the opposite? No it does not.

The 92% figure is just drawn out of thin air unless show the number and titles of the President's senior senior staff and closest advisors, the latter of whom may be in or out of government. For example one of the President's Advisory Councils that cover competitiveness and jobs, that is business competitiveness and private sector jobs, has 27 members. Excepting 2 labor leaders, you'll find such people as the CEOs of GE, Dupont Chemical, American Express, The Founder of AOL, SouthWest Airlines, Proctor and Gamble, Boeing and more to include the CEOs of multibillion dollar Wall Street Investment firms. It's also well known that President Obama frequently consulted with Steve Jobs of Apple before his death, and Warren Buffet among others. So the 92% is truly a made up figure that cannot be independently verified. Btw few business people are also economists.

Ten percent of the nation's workforce, 13 million people, will get up and go to work tomorrow and be surprised to find out that they don't have real jobs. That's the approximate number of people who work in non-profit businesses. I guess the elitists think that these people ought to go out and get a real job. The funny thing is I didn't see any small business owners getting assistance from these non profits during disasters rejecting the aid. I'm going to guess only a small portion of the business elite are so condescending about people who work for non profits.

This is especially true since so many of the wealthiest businessmen and women fund, create their own, or otherwise assist non profits. Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and others run their own non profits and have contributed billions to others. Fortunately this is the dominant view of many of our most wealthiest citizens, or even non citizens.

So here's the reason that the percentage is bogus for President Obama and probably many of the other Presidents. There are 15 Cabinet posts, if 1 of Obama's appointments had business experience that's 6%, 2 persons would be 13% . You can't get 8% unless you round up from 6%. The real figure is more like 40%, or a little less. I suspect that the Bush figure is not correct either.

Numbers not withstanding, so what? The statistic proves nothing. What makes a great President has been studied to the Nth degree, and you know what they show? Easy, you can't predict how good or bad a President will be based on what they did,or didn't do in the past. Previous jobs are not predictive of anything. If that's true of Presidents, it's doubly true of Cabinet officers. Was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, a better Sec Def than Gates? Was Sec McNamara a better Sec Def than Cohen? Of the following Secretaries of State who did a better job, Howard Baker, or Marshall. How about Sec Clinton or Powell?

The final proof that the predictive value of the IVB report is zero is the economic record of the last administration. The worst job creation record of any modern President, an economy that was in free fall and threatened to take the West's economy down with it. The 3 secretaries of the Treasury under whose watch this occurred were all business people: O'Neil the former CEO of Alcoa, Snow the CEO of CSX known for decreasing safety that ultimately led to the loss of life in an AMTRAK accident, and Paulson a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Of the 2, O'Neil was the only one who saw the gathering economic storm, but he was fired, I suspect, for telling the truth about the Iraq War. Paulson received warning after warning from Chairman Bernake at the Federal Reserve. However, he did not act until it was too late to make a reasoned response.

Anyway thanks for the charts, they might be of some use in a game somewhere. Otherwise it's just another straw-man ploy to say something negative about the administration that is not supported by facts.
Gat6

[gatlingun6]

The following has been attributed to Donald Trump:
...................................................................
Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,

by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese ,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?

In Short

Not a Thing that I can think of

Well you asked!!

*******************************************************************************************
wow, the gutless reality show host is pontificating nonsense once again, the jokes on anyone who believes this coward. The little man Trumpie can only run his mouth from the side lines. Of course having been put in his insignificant place by the President that's all he dares do, is run his mouth.

I say to Trump talk is cheap, put your money where your politically dumbo mouth is, and put your hat in the ring.

How do we know when it's close to time for his reality show to start? Why it's when the TV pimp starts running his mouth.

Gat6

[SHMIV]

Well, come on, Gat. You're not going to pick apart the statement attributed to Trump?

There are a few less than complimentary names that fit Trump well, but "coward" isn't one of them; neither is "gutless".

Obama has nothing to do with Trumps place, significant or otherwise. Trump is where he is because that's where he want's to be. He's gotten quite wealthy off of his ability to run his mouth. Talk may be cheap, but when enough people are buying, one can make quite the living off of it.

I thought you had something against insulting those with whom you disagree?

[allingeneral]

Well, come on, Gat. [...] I thought you had something against insulting those with whom you disagree?

+1

[dorminWS]

@Gat6:

First, the statement ”I just love statistics that relegate human beings to a number, a percentage if you will with nothing qualitative to make sense of the number.” is a well-turned phrase, but it is, in my opinion, nonsensical. The base argument seems to be that “qualitative” considerations always trump QUANTITATIVE ones. This is the classic liberal mindset that has been used to ignore the hard numbers for so long and continue to pursue “qualitative” issues while the debt becomes unsustainable. Seems to me that it doesn’t matter whether you can’t count or you just won’t; the results are the same. It boils down to doing what feels good with no objective criteria. That may be OK when you are running your own company with your own money; but when government gets into that manner of operating, it is inconsistent with both capitalism and a government of laws. I have to say that I am not surprised to see that a staunch supporter of and apologist for B H Obama sees nothing wrong with that.

Second, to call real businesspeople who do not regard those whose experience is limited to government and non-profits (and I would include academics in that group) as fully-qualified for policy-making responsibility “elitist” is, in my opinion, nothing less than deluded. The delusion is that government/non-profit service adequately prepares one for making the policy decisions (based, presumably, upon the aforementioned “qualitative” considerations) that will seek to order the world in which real for-profit businesses operate. THAT is elitist on the part of the government/non-profit people who espouse that position. It is as close akin as is possible in the real world to the cliché of the guy who shows up in the operating room to perform an appendectomy and tells the patient that he’s not a doctor, but he’s played one on TV. I’ll go further: Not even all business people are adequately qualified in my opinion. Let’s talk, for instance, about Steve Jobs (or our esteemed former Governor Mark Warner). Jobs made his fortune on a seminal piece of innovation, and repeated that trick an additional few times. That didn’t necessarily make him an astute businessman, and in fact, Apple has fallen on hard times more than once before and Jobs has left the company for a while. Lesson: great technological (or marketing) innovators do not necessarily make good long-term managers, even if they own the company. Sound long-term management should be what government is all about. Mark Warner will tell you openly that he went broke more than once before he hit it big, and the truth is he got rich by being in the right place at the right time. In other words, he was just lucky as hell. He’s like the rich Holywood stars; easy come-easy go. Really competent businessmen whose experience is germane to fixing our economy are the ones who know how to grind out long-term success over many boring, mundane years by numbers-driven decision-making; not the ones who play the odds on the next federal budget’s grant availability. You seem to be offended because your own background is at least mostly in academia/non-profit/government. The way I see it, letting you guys have any more than an advisory role in government is like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum – or more appropriately, letting the customers operate the cash register.

Finally, as to “The Donald”: I don’t like the guy much myself. But by no stretch of the imagination is he a coward. In fact, he made a lot of his money by taking financial risks a lot of others were unwilling to take. And as a devotee of B H Obama, I’m sure you’d like to see him run and split the republican/conservative ticket, but most of us on the conservative side hope his better judgment will remain in control of his oversized ego and he will not. Really, Gat6, this gratuitous disparagement of those with whom you disagree and class-warfare pandering is something you liberals need to try to rise above. It is petty and mean-spirited, and it makes you look bad. I suspect it also does a lot to discourage the conservatives from even trying to compromise with people of so sanguine a disposition.

Do your fellow Obama fans know you own a GUN? I'm surprised they'll let you into the club house.

[gatlingun6]

Here is the source article for all this BS.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/24/michae ... binet.html
It is from November 2009, so any blog/site/article that came after that is derivative from it. What is interesting is that the number shown for Obama is NOT 8% but is more like 22% (in 2009), and the author has stated separately that in deriving that number, he chose to IGNORE any prior service as an attorney at a law firm (how is this not the private sector?),

................................................................
As a matter of fact, working as an attorney is much more similar to government service than it is a real business that actually produces something, and it is virtually indistinguishable from academia, except for occasional contact with clients; some of whom may be real-world people (but who may be pursuing a something-for-nothing fantasy in any event). The larger the law firm, the more this is true. Even in-house counsel at privately-held companies tend to be isolated from the business environment and constitute an impediment to productivity.
...................................................................

and he did NOT include all cabinet positions! His words: "I did not include prior private-sector experience for the following positions: Postmaster General; Navy; War (now Defense); Health, Education & Welfare; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security."

....................................................................
Two points:
(1) If the percentages were computed the same way for all Presidents, the relative ranks will be the same; i.e., with Obama on the bottom.
(2) even accepting what you say, Obama, at 22%, is still ranked well below all the other Presidents.
....................................................................

The source article is BS, the blogs based on it are BS plus false statistics, and it would be good for people reading quoting, and promulgating this stuff to develop a better BS detector. Critical thinking, guys, where is it?

.....................................................................
I used to have a pretty good BS detector, but the first time I watched Obama make a speech, it rang plumb off the hook and exploded.
.......................................................................

********************************************************************************************
Dormin I have no idea what the point of your reply happens to be? So lawyers are not engaged in private business? Huh? Pray tell, what business operates without retained or in-house lawyers? If what you say is true of lawyers it's also true of accountants. In fact your definition seems to encompass only manufacturing, construction, and farmers. In the zeal to make a point that is completely irrelevant to anything, you have excluded the vast majority of American workers. Btw are you saying that a contract produced by a lawyer is not a product? A patent filed with the U.S. Patent Office is not a product?

The top 10 non government occupations in the U.S. are all in the service industry. Wall Street is in the service industry. Consultants are in the service industry, Lobbyists, airline pilots, mechanics, transport workers, warehouse workers, cashiers, customer service, barge workers, bankers, clerks, quality control specialists, inspectors, Travel industry workers, ship crews, sales people, import/exporters, and on and on and on. Well over 60 million Americans are employed by the service industry. I dare say that a fair share of people on this very forum also work in the service industry or heaven forbids, government.

In finality, there is not one scintilla of empirical data that in anyway suggests or proves that a business person is a better President or Cabinet member than one who isn't, or vice verso. Nothing proves that better than the Bush administration, which had the worse economic record of any modern administration of any party. We will be suffering the effects of his disastrous 8 years for the next 10 to 12 years. It doesn't matter who the next President is, we will be suffering the after effects of Bush's economic policies for years.

Gat6

[Jakeiscrazy]

The following has been attributed to Donald Trump:
...................................................................
Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't,

which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that didn't read it but
exempted themselves from it,

and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes,

for which we'll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,

by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese ,

and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!

'What the hell could possibly go wrong?

In Short

Not a Thing that I can think of

Well you asked!!

*******************************************************************************************
wow, the gutless reality show host is pontificating nonsense once again, the jokes on anyone who believes this coward. The little man Trumpie can only run his mouth from the side lines. Of course having been put in his insignificant place by the President that's all he dares do, is run his mouth.

I say to Trump talk is cheap, put your money where your politically dumbo mouth is, and put your hat in the ring.

How do we know when it's close to time for his reality show to start? Why it's when the TV pimp starts running his mouth.

Gat6

You insult him for running his mouth from the side line yet your doing the same thing! Are you throwing your hat into the ring? The only diffance between you talking and him talking is he has a platform that people hear him from.

[dorminWS]

Dormin I have no idea what the point of your reply happens to be?
…………………………………………………………
OBVIOUSLY NOT. BUT I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT PROBLEM IS OF YOUR MAKING, NOT MINE.
……………………………………………………………….
So lawyers are not engaged in private business? Huh? Pray tell, what business operates without retained or in-house lawyers?
..................................................................
LAWYERS ARE ENGAGED IN PRACTICING LAW; AND THERE'S ONE HELL OF A DIFFERENCE. THAT, AS I SAID, IS MUCH MORE LIKE ACADEMIA OR GOVERNMENT THAN BUSINESS. I'LL LET YOU IN ON A LITTLE SECRET: BUSINESSPEOPLE GENERALLY AGREE THAT LAWYERS AS A GROUP MAKE VERY POOR BUSINESSPEOPLE; SECOND ONLY TO DOCTORS AS A GROUP. YOU CAN CLASSIFY RUNNING A LAW OFFICE AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS, BUT THAT IS MISSING THE POINT. RETAINED AND IN-HOUSE LAWYERS MORE OFTEN TELL BUSINESS PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN'T DO THAN HOW TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO. THEY ARE A NECESSARY EVIL, BUT SELDOM A CONVENIENCE.
..............................................................
If what you say is true of lawyers it's also true of accountants.
.............................................................

NON SEQUITUR. YOUR CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM YOUR PREMISE. YOU DO A LOT OF THIS.
............................................................
In fact your definition seems to encompass only manufacturing, construction, and farmers.
......................................
AGAIN, NON SEQUITUR.
.....................................
In the zeal to make a point that is completely irrelevant to anything,
........................................
I THINK THE POT IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK, HERE.
..........................................
you have excluded the vast majority of American workers. Btw are you saying that a contract produced by a lawyer is not a product? A patent filed with the U.S. Patent Office is not a product?
........................................
AS A MATTER OF FACT, LEGAL SERVICES OF ALL KINDS ARE JUST THAT; SERVICES. THE PAPER PRODUCED IS JUST INDICIA THEREOF. YOU ARE CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU CONFUSE YOURSELF; NOT BECAUSE I DO.
................................................
The top 10 non government occupations in the U.S. are all in the service industry. Wall Street is in the service industry. Consultants are in the service industry, Lobbyists, airline pilots, mechanics, transport workers, warehouse workers, cashiers, customer service, barge workers, bankers, clerks, quality control specialists, inspectors, Travel industry workers, ship crews, sales people, import/exporters, and on and on and on. Well over 60 million Americans are employed by the service industry. I dare say that a fair share of people on this very forum also work in the service industry or heaven forbids, government.
..................................................
I DIDN'T EXCLUDE SERVICES; YOU DID. BUT GOVERNMENT "SERVICES" PRODUCE NOTHING. THEY BLEED RESOURCES FROM AND FREQUENTLY IMPEDE AND INFLATE THE COST OF PRODUCERS OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAT DO ADD VALUE AND INVOLVE PRODUCTIVE INPUT. IF YOU EVER GET THAT CRUCUAL DIFFERENCE THROUGH YOUR SKULL, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. MY POSITION IS THAT WE SHOULD, RATHER THAN CONSTANTLY EXPANDING THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT; SUFFER MOT ONE IOTA MORE OF IT TO EXIST THAN IS ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSIBLE.
........................................................................
In finality, there is not one scintilla of empirical data that in anyway suggests or proves that a business person is a better President or Cabinet member than one who isn't, or vice verso. Nothing proves that better than the Bush administration, which had the worse economic record of any modern administration of any party. We will be suffering the effects of his disastrous 8 years for the next 10 to 12 years. It doesn't matter who the next President is, we will be suffering the after effects of Bush's economic policies for years.
........................................................................
HOW IRONIC. THIS LAST DIATRIBE YOU PROFFER AS "PROOF" ALSO HAS NOT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT - JUST YOUR OPINION. AND OPINIONS ARE LIKE ANUSES. EVERYBODY'S GOT ONE; AND MOST PEOPLE ARE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THEIRS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T STINK. YOU WILL PARDON ME IF I OPINE THAT YOUR OPINION IS PRODIGIOUSLY ODIFEROUS.


AS TO THE VALUE OF BUSINESS EXPERIENCE, THE SALIENT POINT HERE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS EVEN TO THE MOST BENIGHTED THAT GOVERNMENT IS SEVERELY HANDICAPPED WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REGULATE OR ASSIST AN ENTERPRISE ABOUT WHICH THEY HAVE LITTLE REAL UNDERSTNDING AND WHICH THEY APPEAR TO HOLD IN SOME CONTEMPT. THE VARIOUS FORMS OF COMMERCE ARE WHAT DRIVES THE ECONOMY; NOT BUSINESS. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE THAT; THE BEST POLICY IS TO STAY OUT OF THE WAY. GOVERNMENT JUST DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT, PERIOD.

[Kreutz]

BUSINESSPEOPLE GENERALLY AGREE THAT LAWYERS AS A GROUP MAKE VERY POOR BUSINESSPEOPLE; SECOND ONLY TO DOCTORS AS A GROUP.

Can't say I agree with Dormin on damned near a thing, but man, I know from my own experience doctors and business/money go together like heparin and a hemophiliac (medically inclined people will get the humor there, and if you don't its not funny anyway).

Gotta say though Dormin, like a mirror image of Gunderwood, you can't say Gat doesnt do his research. Your last bit about poop chutes and opinions is a bit off, is there actually any empirical evidence to support the idea you need business experience to be a better President?

Lets be honest for the last 140 years or so only rich folks get to be President, and they're always hereditary rich folks with two exceptions, Clinton and Obama.

Getting Daddy to stick you on his board of directors or hand you a company (ala Dubya) isn't impressive to me.

[dorminWS]

The discussion was about staff and cabinet members, not presidents. Thruth is, nobody - no matter whart their credentials, can be POTUS and do the job alone. They must have a strong, able staff and cabinet. Running the country is not what either the President or the Congress does or can ever do. The3 most effective they can be is get out of the way and intervene only occasionally when it is absolutely necessary. Commerce is what runs our country. It is the enghine of our prosperity and world preminence. A sound understanding of and solid experience in some form of that is therefore a huge advantage and ought to be a prerequisite. This is simple common sense.

Empirical evidence? An interesting concept with respect to such basic issues. What do you expect? An official report on a study done by some federal bureaucracy? By a conservative/liberal/libertarian thinktank? By some college professor (85% of whom are card-carrying liberals)? By some news organization (100% of whom are percieved to have a pronounced bias - one way or the other)? I submit there is no authoritative arbiter of truth on this one. One must open his eyes and use his brain for something besides just a stopper to keep his ears from whistling in the wind..