Leo Marks tried to warn you about Mitt Romney

[Chef Jim]

I didn't describe anything. I made mention of an agreggate effects doctrine though. Your mention is entirely the opposite of how an aggregate effects scenario would operate in the context of executive decision-making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, a decision made today would absolutely affect the profit and loss on that day whether or not it was acknowledged on that day or not because of the frequency/method with which it's tabulated.

 

The wheel's are in motion...so to speak.

 

It's fine if you don't agree. I may be wrong; I'm not a business man. But I'm sticking with it because it makes sense conceptually.

 

Fruitless discussion anyway. I'm not expecting any concessions from you - right or wrong. Chef Jim already explained how that works.

 

 

 

Trust me toots, I'm the one laughing.

 

 

So if you're not a "business man" may I ask what your profession is? I'm rolling the dice on "professional student".

[DC Tom]

I didn't describe anything. I made mention of an agreggate effects doctrine though. Your mention is entirely the opposite of how an aggregate effects scenario would operate in the context of executive decision-making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, a decision made today would absolutely affect the profit and loss on that day whether or not it was acknowledged on that day or not because of the frequency/method with which it's tabulated.

 

The wheel's are in motion...so to speak.

 

It's fine if you don't agree. I may be wrong; I'm not a business man. But I'm sticking with it because it makes sense conceptually.

 

Fruitless discussion anyway. I'm not expecting any concessions from you - right or wrong. Chef Jim already explained how that works.

 

 

 

Trust me toots, I'm the one laughing.

 

You don't have to be a businessman to know that an executive decision isn't implemented same-day, hence can't affect P&L THE SAME DAY. That makes no sense. And your logic makes even less sense...P&L is affected that day, whether or not it's acknowledged that day, because of the frequency of which it's tabulated...which is almost never daily? In other words, it's affected, but you can't possibly know?

 

And it's not a trivial statement...this complete misunderstanding of some very basic principles of business AND leadership is, in part, what you're basing your judgement of a candidate's business experience on. What you specifically said was: "Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently." It's not trivial...it's a basic lack of comprehension of executive management that you think business and government differ substantially in this regard. We're not just hammering this point because it's fun watching you dig yourself deeper. It's actually central to your initial thesis: Romney's business experience is counter-productive, because of the fundamental difference in transparency. Your thesis is completely flawed, because your understanding of business and government is at a very basic level completely and thoroughly !@#$ed.

[IDBillzFan]

Solid? How?

 

 

 

Careful. When a business executive laughs, it can adversely affect free cash flow for the next hour.

I have time to laugh because, y'see, I already made my profitable decisions this morning, and I'm just waiting until 5 p.m. to cash in. It's part of my company's new business model:

 

Step 1: Make a decision at 8 a.m.

Step 2:

Step 3: Cash out profits at 5 p.m.

[DC Tom]

I have time to laugh because, y'see, I already made my profitable decisions this morning, and I'm just waiting until 5 p.m. to cash in. It's part of my company's new business model:

 

Step 1: Make a decision at 8 a.m.

Step 2:

Step 3: Cash out profits at 5 p.m.

 

Step 2 is implementation. You're an executive, you don't have to worry about that ****.

[Juror#8]

So back to your original post, you present the position position that "businessmen", whatever the hell that means, make bad presidents. In support of that claim you: completely over simplified and mischaracterized the nature and challenges of business; for some reason you included some off the cuff comment from Iacocca which admittedly has no bearing and does not encapsulate your point (and confuses equity with P&L); cited several other "businessmen" who have been lack luster presidents as if all businessmen have similar abilities and characteristics; and then listed a few reasons (lack of a hometown) that might make it difficult for Romney to win in a general election; and all the while ignored his actual political experience.

 

No I was laying a foundation for a claim that they may make bad presidents. I presented a few points, and was interested in getting some counter-examples.

 

Noone, besides Magox, has made the point that characteristically career business folks have translatable political skills.

 

No one has provided any examples of a successful business owner and president...in 200+ years.

 

And that, Jauronimo, is why I'm laughing, though LABillzFan thinks that he is so entitled.

 

But it all goes back to Chef Jim's point. None of this matters. OCinBuffalo said it months ago.

 

Eh...nevermind. I haven't gotten an answer in 65 posts so I don't expect anything but the same forthcoming.

 

Thanks Magox, Jauronimo, and Taro for the discussion.

 

You don't have to be a businessman to know that an executive decision isn't implemented same-day, hence can't affect P&L THE SAME DAY. That makes no sense. And your logic makes even less sense...P&L is affected that day, whether or not it's acknowledged that day, because of the frequency of which it's tabulated...which is almost never daily? In other words, it's affected, but you can't possibly know?

 

And it's not a trivial statement...this complete misunderstanding of some very basic principles of business AND leadership is, in part, what you're basing your judgement of a candidate's business experience on. What you specifically said was: "Ok so in business, you make a decision at 9 am, and by close of business you've either turned a profit or you haven't. Government doesn't operate that transparently." It's not trivial...it's a basic lack of comprehension of executive management that you think business and government differ substantially in this regard. We're not just hammering this point because it's fun watching you dig yourself deeper. It's actually central to your initial thesis: Romney's business experience is counter-productive, because of the fundamental difference in transparency. Your thesis is completely flawed, because your understanding of business and government is at a very basic level completely and thoroughly !@#$ed.

 

That's not, and never, was my thesis.

 

There is no digging involved here. My point hasn't been addressed. You've proved that you fundamentally misunderstand what it is that I'm trying to discuss.

 

And for the second or third time, what did you think of Iacocca's point? Oh, I get it, you make the rules so it doesn't matter. It "mattering" would disrupt what, to you, is a perfectly good hypothesis.

 

The "spiraling," and "digging" hypothesis. Check.

 

Gotcha. You've made your point - but not one that you likely intended.

 

Rinse. Dry. Repeat.

 

Have a good day folks.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Juror#8

[IDBillzFan]

There is no digging involved here. My point hasn't been addressed. You've proved that you fundamentally misunderstand what it is that I'm trying to discuss.

 

It's like having President Obama himself posting on our board: "I'm not wrong; you just aren't smart enough to understand me."

[KD in CA]

I have time to laugh because, y'see, I already made my profitable decisions this morning, and I'm just waiting until 5 p.m. to cash in. It's part of my company's new business model:

 

Step 1: Make a decision at 8 a.m.

Step 2:

Step 3: Cash out profits at 5 p.m.

 

 

Those better not be windfall profits.

[Taro T]

I didn't describe anything. I made mention of an agreggate effects doctrine though. Your mention is entirely the opposite of how an aggregate effects scenario would operate in the context of executive decision-making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, a decision made today would absolutely affect the profit and loss on that day whether or not it was acknowledged on that day or not because of the frequency/method with which it's tabulated.

 

The wheel's are in motion...so to speak.

 

It's fine if you don't agree. I may be wrong; I'm not a business man. But I'm sticking with it because it makes sense conceptually.

 

Fruitless discussion anyway. I'm not expecting any concessions from you - right or wrong. Chef Jim already explained how that works.

 

 

 

Trust me toots, I'm the one laughing.

But a decision made to day absolutely wouldn't effect the profits nor loss on that day unless they actually directly altered either revenues or expenses that day. Few executive decisions will affect the revenues or expenses on the day they are made enough at all, much less to a large enough degree to effect a change to the P&L.

 

A decision made today will possibly effect the value of the firm because it could effect future revenues, expenses, or both, both in quantity and in timing.

 

Even a decision as monumental as Steve Jobs deciding to develop the iPhone didn't show up on a P&L for years. It didn't show up in Apple's valuation for years as well. It didn't even affect the 'true' value of Apple for nearly as long as the probability of success was low during much of the R&D phase and the present value of the iPhone in the early '00's was negligible. The decision had been made and ultimately a lot of value was added due to the implementation and subsequent decisions, but that value wasn't there at the time of the original decision.

 

And the distinctions you've made on which Presidents were 'businessmen' and which were 'academics' seem a bit arbitrary. That stated, I'd much prefer to see a President with executive experience (from civilian or military) than one with legislative experience. An executive has to make decisions, a legislator deliberates. The skill sets which make one good in each sphere are unique. For the most part, those with executive experience make better Presidents. (President Carter being an obvious exception to the rule. When you're the outlier, you're the outlier, regardless of background.)

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No stevestojan. Maybe you should come back when you have two brain cells to rub together.

 

This may have some direction/basis in reality if Romney had no experience other than as a CEO. But as it stands, you don't acknowledge that he led an Olympic Games that was $800M in the hole from corruption and graft when he got there and which ended up making $300M in an era when almost EVERY Olympic endeavor has lost money hand over fist and any city and nation that bids for it looks upon it as a tourism advertising effort. who's just throwing stevestojan out there and basically created a RomneyBad thread so you could link a smarmy video.

Really?

 

I'd like to see what he could have done without the Evil Federal Government bailing his Olympics out. His greatest success is that he competently doled out federal pork. Wonderful!

 

 

“I think it is a disgrace,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who, along with U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., asked the government agency to investigate the escalating expenditures for hosting the Olympic games in American cities.

 

 

Pork-Barrel Spending?

 

The federal government will pay nearly half of the $2.7 billion it is expected to cost to host the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, according to the report.

 

The $1.3 billion in federal spending is more than double the amount of federal funds —$609 million— that supported the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta. The Atlanta games cost the city a total of $2 billion, the report said.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95650&page=1

[DC Tom]

No I was laying a foundation for a claim that they may make bad presidents. I presented a few points, and was interested in getting some counter-examples.

 

Noone, besides Magox, has made the point that characteristically career business folks have translatable political skills.

 

No one has provided any examples of a successful business owner and president...in 200+ years.

 

And that, Jauronimo, is why I'm laughing, though LABillzFan thinks that he is so entitled.

 

But it all goes back to Chef Jim's point. None of this matters. OCinBuffalo said it months ago.

 

Eh...nevermind. I haven't gotten an answer in 65 posts so I don't expect anything but the same forthcoming.

 

Thanks Magox, Jauronimo, and Taro for the discussion.

 

 

 

That's not, and never, was my thesis.

 

There is no digging involved here. My point hasn't been addressed. You've proved that you fundamentally misunderstand what it is that I'm trying to discuss.

 

And for the second or third time, what did you think of Iacocca's point? Oh, I get it, you make the rules so it doesn't matter. It "mattering" would disrupt what, to you, is a perfectly good hypothesis.

 

The "spiraling," and "digging" hypothesis. Check.

 

Gotcha. You've made your point - but not one that you likely intended.

 

Rinse. Dry. Repeat.

 

Have a good day folks.

 

Funny. I went back and read your original post. Considering that you started by suggesting that we should somehow judge a person's qualifications by how their individual talents translate to "the big leagues" (my metaphor, not yours), and that business and government are fundamentally different because of "transparency", and Romney is a businessman, and that businessmen historically make bad political leaders...

 

How in the hell is that NOT your thesis?

[Magox]

Really?

 

I'd like to see what he could have done without the Evil Federal Government bailing his Olympics out. His greatest success is that he competently doled out federal pork. Wonderful!

 

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95650&page=1

Seems like I'm always correcting you, I mean I know you like hate facts and stuff but here you go.

 

 

FROM FACT CHECK

 

A DNC web video that proclaims “the real savior of the Games” was “the American taxpayer” put the federal government’s contributions much higher, at $1.3 billion. It was, the ad says, “more federal dollars than spent on all previous Olympics [in the U.S.] combined.”

 

Again, according to a November 2001 GAO report, the federal government spent $342 million on direct costs related to the Salt Lake City Games. The $1.3 billion figure cited in the DNC ad comes from a September 2000 GAO analysis of Olympic spending, undertaken at the request of Rep. John Dingell and Sen. John McCain. It included about $1.1 billion in indirect funding for the 2002 games, including such things as highways, transit systems and other capital improvements.

 

The 2001 report notes, “According to federal and state officials, these projects would eventually have been undertaken regardless of the Olympic Games, but they were prioritized or accelerated so that they could be completed in time for the Games.”

 

In an Aug. 18, 2000, letter to the GAO, Romney said, “In our view, the emphasis should be placed on Olympic required activities, not on spending which would have otherwise occurred.”

 

But Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan earmark watchdog, said it’s hard to say if money “accelerated” to Salt Lake City would have gone there without the games. Even with projects in the federal government’s pipeline, he said, many fall through because justification for them erodes over time, or plans are scrapped because cost estimates rise.

 

“Anything Mitt Romney was able to get from the federal government, or from state and local government, for the Olympic Committee, that’s bonus cash,” Ellis said. “At the time, he wouldn’t be doing his job if he didn’t try to get every dollar he could get.”

 

The Salt Lake City Organizing Committee ended up turning a $100 million profit.

 

But a U.S. Government Accounting Office report in November 2001 shows that it was much more than post-9/11 security funding that was sent Salt Lake City’s way. In all, the GAO found the federal government planned to cover about $342 million of the total direct cost of the games.

 

Of that total, the GAO reported, “not including additional security costs that may be incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government plans to spend about $185 million on safety- and security-related activities.”

 

So there was $185 million in federal funds for security planned even before the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, an additional $157 million was promised for such things as temporary spectator transportation (such as construction and operation of park-and-ride lots), temporary housing for athletes, construction of access roads to some venues, and $19 million to support “staging-and-operations activities” during the games.

 

So lets review here, since we know you hate reading facts that don't support your narrow views.

 

1) The $1.3 Billion that was received, $342M was directly related for Olympics

 

2) $960 Million was going there regardless of the Olympics

 

3) Out of the $342 Million, $185M was for security, NOT INCLUDING extra security costs as a result of 9/11, which from any rational thinking person (Not you) would believe that millions more would of gone towards extra security.

 

 

 

 

Funny how your criticism sounds like a DNC talking point. I guess that pretty much reinforces what I've been saying all along, you are mindless, fact hating, DNC talking point parrot.

 

 

Now thats from those guys called FACT CHECK.

 

 

And we know you hate Facts, so my guess is that you won't accept their results, since you know, you hate facts and stuff.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Magox

[birdog1960]

Seems like I'm always correcting you, I mean I know you like hate facts and stuff but here you go.

 

 

FROM FACT CHECK

 

 

 

 

 

So lets review here, since we know you hate reading facts that don't support your narrow views.

 

1) The $1.3 Billion that was received, $342M was directly related for Olympics

 

2) $960 Million was going there regardless of the Olympics

 

3) Out of the $342 Million, $185M was for security, NOT INCLUDING extra security costs as a result of 9/11, which from any rational thinking person (Not you) would believe that millions more would of gone towards extra security.

 

 

 

 

Funny how your criticism sounds like a DNC talking point. I guess that pretty much reinforces what I've been saying all along, you are mindless, fact hating, DNC talking point parrot.

 

 

Now thats from those guys called FACT CHECK.

 

 

And we know you hate Facts, so my guess is that you won't accept their results, since you know, you hate facts and stuff.

seems you disregarded everything mr steve ellis had to say. facts can sometimes be debated.

[Magox]

seems you disregarded everything mr steve ellis had to say. facts can sometimes be debated.

No I didn't dipshit. Which is why I posted it

 

 

But Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan earmark watchdog, said it’s hard to say if money “accelerated” to Salt Lake City would have gone there without the games. Even with projects in the federal government’s pipeline, he said, many fall through because justification for them erodes over time, or plans are scrapped because cost estimates rise.

 

 

He said "it's hard to say" in other words, he doesn't know.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Magox

[Booster4324]

No announcement could affect our profitability in one day - Reed Hastings

[jjamie12]

How well did he govern...in your estimation?

I thought he governed just fine.

 

At any point from 03-07 did he govern to the left of his current policy proclamations....in your estimation?

 

Of course he did. He was the governor of Massachusetts. The people of Mass. are left of the average American. You have to work within the framework you're presented to do the best job you can.

 

 

You know what, nevermind. You just want to sleep in the echo chamber...ensconced amongst the comfort of voices that sing your lullaby.

 

Sleep love. I won't wake you.

You aren't as smart as you think you are.

 

Stop smearing **** jackass.

Look how tough my internet muscles are!!! Very tactful.

 

 

Are you here to advance or muddle a debate? I want to discuss business attributes and whether or not they'll help or hurt a president. To that end, I provided some criticisms. You want to conflate this post with every other MR post ever written.

 

LINK THE POST THAT LIKEWISE MENTIONS MY POINTS SO THAT I CAN DELETE THIS ONE FOR BEING DUPLICATIVE.

 

Edited for tact.

 

You haven't provided any criticisms that relate to the point that you are supposedly making. Pointing out that a few 'businessmen' were bad Presidents is not a 'criticism'. Likewise, your complete lack of understanding of the Iacoca quote has completely derailed this thread. The reason for the derailment is that you seem to be taking the quote literally, which is just completely wrong-headed -- when you base your argument substantially in part on a complete lack of knowledge of 'something' this is what you get.

 

You want to talk about how 'business' skills translate to governing skills, apparently. In doing this, your points of discussion are a misinterpreted Iacoca quote, along with the observation that a few Presidents who were 'businessmen' were bad Presidents. This last sentence again just points to your apparent lack of understanding of what you're talking about -- as if a Peanut Farmer should be considered a 'businessman' the EXACT same as a venture capitalist (MR) or a guy who is a 'businessman' in the sense that "Hey, your dad has political influence, why don't you join our investing group!" (GWB).

 

As if that isn't enough to not believe you're actually interested in a real discussion of whether business executive experience translates to governing effectively -- the entire first post of this thread is focused on Mitt Romney, who actually has governing experience that would seem (to me, at least) be pretty relevant in a discussion about how Mitt Romney's business career will help or hinder his ability to govern! Your sole focus is on Romney's private sector experience 15-30 years ago when there is far more relevant information to look at that you, unbelievably, don't find important enough to mention. It's ridiculous and it's silly. Again, we get it. You don't like Mitt Romney, you think he'll lose (Remember the "Mitt Romney is a political quack and a peon" thread that you started?). Fine. It's a defensible position to have. Stop boring us with your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and your fake-ass "I just want to have a debate about business experience translating into governing" -- If you actually wanted that debate, you'd get it. You would do this by starting a thread with the first post going something like this:

 

"I've been thinking about the differences between what a CEO does versus what a President does. In some ways, it's very similar -- You listen to your best advisers, set the agenda, and allow everyone around you to do what they're best at, while you're giving them every opportunity to do their best work. In one very, very important way, though it's completely different -- When you're the CEO you basically get what you want. Yes, there is a lot of internal politics involved in getting people to put in their best effort and getting them to buy into what you're trying to accomplish -- fortunately you have the ability to fire people! It's not really like that with the President -- the President can't fire Congress, you've got to convince them that going along with you will be better than going against you. It's a very different type of leadership. What are your thoughts?"

 

It appears you aren't interested in other people's thoughts, though -- just your own. Good luck with that.

[UConn James]

As if that isn't enough to not believe you're actually interested in a real discussion of whether business executive experience translates to governing effectively -- the entire first post of this thread is focused on Mitt Romney, who actually has governing experience that would seem (to me, at least) be pretty relevant in a discussion about how Mitt Romney's business career will help or hinder his ability to govern! Your sole focus is on Romney's private sector experience 15-30 years ago when there is far more relevant information to look at that you, unbelievably, don't find important enough to mention. It's ridiculous and it's silly. Again, we get it. You don't like Mitt Romney, you think he'll lose (Remember the "Mitt Romney is a political quack and a peon" thread that you started?). Fine. It's a defensible position to have. Stop boring us with your pseudo-intellectual nonsense and your fake-ass "I just want to have a debate about business experience translating into governing" -- If you actually wanted that debate, you'd get it. You would do this by starting a thread with the first post going something like this:

 

Something I mentioned upthread that received a terse "Shut your trap!" from Juror#8.

 

He doesn't want to have this part of the conversation.

 

And I'll say it again, this thread was started as a conceit to post a smarmy video.

[OCinBuffalo]

"I've been thinking about the differences between what a CEO does versus what a President does. In some ways, it's very similar -- You listen to your best advisers, set the agenda, and allow everyone around you to do what they're best at, while you're giving them every opportunity to do their best work. In one very, very important way, though it's completely different -- When you're the CEO you basically get what you want. Yes, there is a lot of internal politics involved in getting people to put in their best effort and getting them to buy into what you're trying to accomplish -- fortunately you have the ability to fire people! It's not really like that with the President -- the President can't fire Congress, you've got to convince them that going along with you will be better than going against you. It's a very different type of leadership. What are your thoughts?"

Faulty comparison.

 

The reality is: you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress. CEOs are not some monolithic, all powerful thing. That is is myth. Most of the ones I have met are simply a person trying to do a job that's different than yours. Often the politics involved are just as brutal, usually they are worse, and, CEOs don't get to use the media to make their case. Now of course a CEO can fire a low-mid level employee, but so can a President. I have seen CEOs that are merely the mutually agreed upon person that the largest coalition of upper level managers have determined is acceptable. In that case, the CEO is absolutely a political position, mostly a referee, and they can forget about making hiring and firing decisions.

 

Even when the person has the full power of the office, the only time CEOs can really fire people is when they first take the job. After that, firing the people they have chosen, or didn't think to check out, only serves to make them look like they don't know how to manage. That's why you see major house cleanings when new CEOs come in, even when they aren't warranted. The new CEO simply doesn't want to take any chances, because this is their only chance.

 

And, let's not forget about the board. The President doesn't have a board to answer to. As in, a small group of people who are not short on self-esteem, whose presence on the board is rarely due to their ability to be CEO-->that's why they are paying the CEO. This small group can create chaos at the drop of a hat, and then blame the CEO for not cleaning up their mess.

 

Most CEOs must deal with people that the board forces on them. Many times these people's only loyalty is the to the board member that inserted them. And, CEOs also have to deal with people who either have critical knowledge or political support from the group they represent, who therefore cannot be fired under any circumstance. Fixing this problem has become part of my scope more than once. This way, it's our fault when the annoying, insubordinate VP is separated, not the CEO's. But, even that takes months/a year. Get it?

 

So please, if we are going to make comparisons between real business CEOs(um, not owners of car dealerships, and bars ), and the President, let's at least endeavor to do it properly.

 

Moreover, Romney was a management consultant at BCG. So, I know he knows how to deal with people in large organizations. Unfortunately, even on the best of projects, 60% of what we do is politics. So, talking in terms of Romney's kind of business experience being a liability in politics is far past ridiculous.

 

And, as a management consultant, I have spent the better part of my career dealing with/walking back the outdated, and often absurd, Lee Iocca thinking that most of the baby boomers espouse. Go ahead and bring your TQM in my direction, and you will leave that meeting with your ass shredded.

Edited February 25, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[jjamie12]

you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress.

It must be really hard to fire upper managers, since the President has no power at all to 'fire' Congress. OK, though, maybe you have some good points backing this up. Let's see!

 

Even when the person has the full power of the office, the only time CEOs can really fire people is when they first take the job.

Wait -- So CEO's can actually fire upper managers? But, OK, only when they first start, I guess, so OK, I'm still with you, maybe. Let's see what other points you have (Still waiting to see how the President can 'fire' Congress)

 

Now of course a CEO can fire a low-mid level employee, but so can a President.

Right. A CEO can fire people. Wait. That can't be right. I'm confused. Which member of Congress is the low-mid level employee that the President can fire? Is that like the junior Senator from Wyoming (who cares about that guy -- AMIRIGHT!?!?)

 

And, CEOs also have to deal with people who either have critical knowledge or political support from the group they represent, who therefore cannot be fired under any circumstance.

Right! Sort of like Congress! Wait-- That's what I said! Now I'm REALLY confused.

 

Fixing this problem has become part of my scope more than once. This way, it's our fault when the annoying, insubordinate VP is separated, not the CEO's. But, even that takes months/a year. Get it?

I *totally* "Get it" now. CEO's can fire people. Even people who "cannot be fired under any circumstance" Wait! That can't be right! You said up above that it's harder to fire 'upper managers' than it is for the President to fire Congress -- now I'm just lost. Why do you keep telling me how CEO's can do the thing you say they can't do?

 

Faulty comparison.

See, I don't think it's a faulty comparison at all. CEO's need their upper managers to buy into their strategery in order to be successful. A President needs Congress to buy into his/her strategery (grossly simplified -- I'm aware of the simplification I'm making) to be successful. The difference is that the CEO has direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision. (Even if he isn't firing people, he's doing re-orgs, he's giving people crappy bonuses (to try and get them to leave), he's putting them on projects that are not useful (again, trying to get them to leave), etc...) A President doesn't have that direct ability to get rid of those in Congress who don't, or won't, buy in.

 

I'm really curious about one thing right now, though. Will you try to defend the whole "It's harder to fire upper managers than it is to fire Congress." line? Or will you walk it back to something more realistic. I'm betting on your ego being too big to walk it back.

 

(BTW -- I'm with you on Romney. I think his type of executive experience lends itself extremely well to the type of things you need to do as President. I suppose we BOTH could be wrong about what type of skills you need to be President, though)

Edited February 26, 2012 by jjamie12

[OCinBuffalo]

It must be really hard to fire upper managers, since the President has no power at all to 'fire' Congress. OK, though, maybe you have some good points backing this up. Let's see!

 

 

Wait -- So CEO's can actually fire upper managers? But, OK, only when they first start, I guess, so OK, I'm still with you, maybe. Let's see what other points you have (Still waiting to see how the President can 'fire' Congress)

 

 

Right. A CEO can fire people. Wait. That can't be right. I'm confused. Which member of Congress is the low-mid level employee that the President can fire? Is that like the junior Senator from Wyoming (who cares about that guy -- AMIRIGHT!?!?)

 

 

Right! Sort of like Congress! Wait-- That's what I said! Now I'm REALLY confused.

 

 

I *totally* "Get it" now. CEO's can fire people. Even people who "cannot be fired under any circumstance" Wait! That can't be right! You said up above that it's harder to fire 'upper managers' than it is for the President to fire Congress -- now I'm just lost. Why do you keep telling me how CEO's can do the thing you say they can't do?

 

 

See, I don't think it's a faulty comparison at all. CEO's need their upper managers to buy into their strategery in order to be successful. A President needs Congress to buy into his/her strategery (grossly simplified -- I'm aware of the simplification I'm making) to be successful. The difference is that the CEO has direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision. (Even if he isn't firing people, he's doing re-orgs, he's giving people crappy bonuses (to try and get them to leave), he's putting them on projects that are not useful (again, trying to get them to leave), etc...) A President doesn't have that direct ability to get rid of those in Congress who don't, or won't, buy in.

 

I'm really curious about one thing right now, though. Will you try to defend the whole "It's harder to fire upper managers than it is to fire Congress." line? Or will you walk it back to something more realistic. I'm betting on your ego being too big to walk it back.

 

(BTW -- I'm with you on Romney. I think his type of executive experience lends itself extremely well to the type of things you need to do as President. I suppose we BOTH could be wrong about what type of skills you need to be President, though)

Now I have to respond to this... I want you to know that you are keeping me from booze.

 

Yes, and the President doesn't have " direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision."?

 

Um, as much as we'd like to think the branches are equal....not so much. You think a popular President can't make serious trouble for a specific Rep. in their district? Like suddenly having the OIG audit all Federal dollars flowing in there, and thereby holding up the entire process, and getting those who want go gain favor to pin it all on the Rep.? You think a Senator can't be taken out? Look at Arlen Spector: and all he did was threaten to trifle with Bush's SCOTUS nominees. Look at what almost happened to Joe Lieberman, and look what Obama is still trying to do to him.

 

The point is, depending upon both the offense given, and the amount of political capital in their account, it's possible for both CEOs and Presidents to get rid of the offender. But it costs, sometimes a lot, to do it right. Usually that cost outweighs the benefit, and more likely you are stuck working with who you have.

 

Sure there are certain people in Congress that aren't touchable, that doesn't mean all of them aren't. Actually most of them are.

 

That's the flaw in your thinking: treating everyone in "Congress" as though they are the same. And, I assure you, that flaw in your thinking has nothing to do with my ego.

 

Now, the real question is: are you going to admit that your thinking is flawed? And, honestly I don't really care whether you now walk it back.

 

Now, its on to the bar. I'll check back tomorrow and see if you still think Nancy Pelosi = some 1st term Rep from the suburbs of Philly who won by 1%.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

No I didn't dipshit. Which is why I posted it

 

 

He said "it's hard to say" in other words, he doesn't know.

Well, John McCain sure knew:

 

 

In a Sept. 19, 2000, speech, McCain said the argument that Salt Lake City eventually would have received the money anyway “doesn’t pass the laugh test” and “is a shell game of the greatest magnitude.”

 

Did you even read this stuff before you posted it you twit?

 

Under Romney’s leadership, the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee hired five lobbying firms, according to Senate lobbying records. Together with its in-house lobbying shop, the Salt Lake committee spent more than $3.5 million and, according to AP, sought federal dollars “to support a tree planting program, anti-doping educational programs, cultural outreach, communications and Weather Service funding, among other areas.”

 

The GAO did not perform a post-Olympic analysis of the total cost to taxpayers, but Romney once put the sum at $400 million, and once boasted that he “got record funds from the federal government.”

 

Ya, Romney sure did this saving of the Olympics through his own rugged individualist determination to save the day!

 

 

Funny, he cried all the way home over bailing out our manufacturing sector in Detriot, but no amount was too big to drag out to Utah.