Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might want to look at what private industry gave us: the banking and housing debacles.
Outsourcing was another great private industry move.
How'd that work for us?
You might want to look at the fact that government and private industry are completely different. There is no profit requirement in government, where it is the basis for private industry.
It's a mistake people frequently make, but it's a critical distinction.
Looks like warmonger president has a lot of private sector experience.
Correlation? I don't know.
chielgirl;11784013]You might want to look at what private industry gave us: the banking and housing debacles.
Outsourcing was another great private industry move.
How'd that work for us?
Private industry has pretty much helped feed, house, clothe, consume, play and educate just about everyone I have known or been related to for that past 50 years or so.
Of course, all of their experiences are anecdotal.
Quote:
You might want to look at the fact that government and private industry are completely different. There is no profit requirement in government, where it is the basis for private industry.
I live in NJ. I'm well aware how unprofitable, hell it's downright unfunctional, and detached from the private sector goverment can be.
Same as with CA, if not worse.
Like with many CA'ians, many NJ'ians are hittin' the road, Jack.
Quote:
Looks like warmonger president has a lot of private sector experience.
Correlation? I don't know
When you viewed the chart back to 1900 your take is that private sector experience equals war mongering?
Seriously?
BDS aside, you never gave an argument to where having "0" private sector experience is a good way to set policy for and manage America's HUGE private sector.
Wait, don't you want government out of the private sector, as in deregulation?
How's that working?
Problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was government regulation, not deregulation. The federal government has their greedy little fingers in just about every industry and for every regulation or restriction they put on an industry, that drives up the cost of doing business which is passed onto the consumers. If the federal government is going to make decisions on something in the private sector, I'd rather they have someone who has worked in that sector advising them. Would you want someone who studied political science or has a law degree making decisions on a private industry they've never worked in? What I would rather is they hire retired workers from those industries who were not corporate execs or upper administrators. These are people who worked from the bottom up and can cut through the BS and get right to the point without being afraid to speak their mind truthfully. But that'll never happen. Some presidents want "yes-men" who either think like they do or will say yes even if they disagree.
You might want to look at what private industry gave us: the banking and housing debacles.
Outsourcing was another great private industry move.
How'd that work for us?
You might want to look at the fact that government and private industry are completely different. There is no profit requirement in government, where it is the basis for private industry.
It's a mistake people frequently make, but it's a critical distinction.
Looks like warmonger president has a lot of private sector experience.
Correlation? I don't know.
This is where the liberals lie through their teeth. I don't know who they think they are kidding. The housing debacle was loosed on the public by the move by the left toward housing for everone. That was not a Republican platform. Now true only about 80 voted against the measure in the house. Also true the Republicans motivation was the banking industry and the democrats motivation was their typical vote w**** stance on everything. In fact there is enough blame to go around. Either by commisson or omission they are all guilty. They should all hang from the white house lawn. However, you are totally incorrect in your naive statement that private industry gave us the housing debacle. It was the mandate of government on private industry which brought the cockroaches, real estate agents, mortgage execs, and banks into the bad decision market. The referees were taken from the field and the free for all began. It was not a Republican thing or a democrat thing it was a political w**** thing.
Help Wanted, No Private Sector Experience Required « The Enterprise Blog
Interesting chart. I wonder what they included as "private sector experience". It seems that private sector positions such as "lawyer" must not have counted. Here might be a little more generous picture of which Cabinet secretaries have had experience in the private sector...
Hillary Rodham Clinton -- Yes...lawyer
Tim Geithner -- Yes...consultant
Robert Gates -- No
Eric Holder -- No
Ken Salazar -- Yes...lawyer
Tom Vilsack -- Yes...lawyer
Gary Locke -- Yes...lawyer
Hilda Solis -- Yes...director of private charity
Kathleen Sebelius -- Yes...director of professional association
Arne Duncan -- Yes...professional basketball player
Shaun Donovan -- Yes...housing financier
Ray LaHood -- Yes...school teacher
Steven Chu -- Yes...scientist
Eric Shinseki -- No
Janet Napolitano -- Yes...lawyer
This is where the liberals lie through their teeth. I don't know who they think they are kidding. The housing debacle was loosed on the public by the move by the left toward housing for everone. That was not a Republican platform. Now true only about 80 voted against the measure in the house.
Further, efforts by both the Clinton and Bush administrations to open prime credit markets to subprime borrowers had nothing to do with the eventual credit crisis. Abuse of subprime and other markets by unregulated pirvate mortgage brokers in service to the insatiable needs of the Wall Street investment banks did have something to do with the eventual credit crisis.
Further, efforts by both the Clinton and Bush administrations to open prime credit markets to subprime borrowers had nothing to do with the eventual credit crisis. Abuse of subprime and other markets by unregulated pirvate mortgage brokers in service to the insatiable needs of the Wall Street investment banks did have something to do with the eventual credit crisis.
You keep preaching that ame old line on this subject and you are just wrong. This is in fact what lead the way. What happened at the gfrass roots level happened throughout the markets not just at the CRA level. The law may have been made to by excuse directed at the CRA level but there were no stops placed anywhere along th continuum so the credit extended to jumbo loans as well in the form of stated income rules etc. So quit lying aobut it and understand it. You come on with that same crap every time which is like a donkey with blinders. Both parties were equally reponsible bu tyou are right it started with Clinton not Bush. Only something on the order of 80 reps voted against it, mostly repubs but some democrats to their credit. They took the referees off the field and it aaffected the entire credit market not just CRA. If yo don't believe that you need to cut and paste some different sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
