Why would you trust someone who never ran a business to help economy?

Its like asking a fatty about how to get a great body.

Academics have never done it.

Neither have welfare grubbing politicians.

All government does it take from biz and producers.
This is why government spending is bad.
You are taking from maker and giving to lazy.
This is so simple to me.
The fed is a government bank. What can it do except steal? It is not a productive hedge fund.....making money....it is a bunch of dmv half retarded academics who can't make deficit disappear or predict 2008.

Of course they can't. They were never successful businesspeople.

Cronyism is a feature of statism.

Only by capitalism can you get rid of slavery and cronyism.

 

I can't say the post was well worded, but I agree with the premise. A HUGE problem is that we don't have economic people in government. Not only those who obviously made money, but even students of economics. I KNOW I could fix our economy(3.8 GPA in Business Administration), and hell I think if you put the US Chamber of Congress in charge, you'd see massive improvements.

I'd take a C-grade economist and put him against Hillary Clinton and you'd get better ideas from the C grade student, I promise you.

 

You of all 86 posts. Well, have fun with what they call the delusion of grandeur.

 

A non profit organization is a business and she, along with her husband, created that non profit organization. At the same time, governmental policy on business is a symbiotic relationship between business and government with business writing most, if not all, of the regulations and getting the bill passed or rejected. And Republicanism grand?

 

and your intelligent point is?

 

You were basically paid a compliment with a hint of productive criticism and you choose to come back with a childish, unsubstantiated insult.

Way to go.

Btw, I too agreed with the majority of your post. I disagree in the premise that big government bureaucrats and elected officials actually want to reduce debt, and balance the budget. If they ever "fixed" anything economically speaking, it would only be through getting the hell out of the way of the imagination and hard work ethic of the very populace they claim to want to help (hard working middle class) all while doing everything they can through strangling them with higher taxes and BS regulations.

The goal of big government, and by extension, it's twin brother named bureaucracy is to grow bigger and more powerful. The more the people have to go to the government (just try to build or replace something on your private property without a "permit" from someone that has no clue other then to show up for a 9-5 cubical and stamp approve or reject) the more they get to grow.

There's no power in "yes" (think about that one)
Everything is "no" unless/until you get the approval from your local and/or federal government. And the latter often gives "grants" to the former and therefore gets to dictate what the locals do.

 

Would you trust somebody who bankrupted FOUR businesses to help the economy?

 

I think we've found Melania's speech writer, folks.

 

One of the few times I will agree with you. Trump said that Carlionia or whatever the hell her name was was unqualified because of her poor CEO performance at Hewlett Packard so thus by his own admission he isn't qualified because of his multiple bankruptcies.

 

This debunked chestnut again? Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a restructuring tool among sophisticated business parties, is SOP in the real estate and other cyclical businesses, and only shares similarity with Chapter 7 liquidation in that they are both in the US Bankruptcy Code.

Educate yourselves and stop buying into, and especially repeating, simplistic MSM/LW sewer pipe lie narratives on reorganization whether they are aimed at Trump or anyone else (read the last link first):

http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics

http://www.mcrazlaw.com/chapter-11-reorganization-a-business-planning-tool-2/

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/how-chapter-11-saved-the-us-economy

To the actual topic, this country desperately needs more politicians with a background of private sector commercial success, and less career politicians and permanently entrenched political elites slinging pork back and forth, hyperregulating the private sector in grafty ways designed to prevent competition with large cronies, and creating all manner of "social concern" ill-advised, unsound business models (green energy) that the legitimate private sector is addressing far more competently and efficiently. The framers knew the danger of entrenched career politicians, and many of our civic problems correlate with the continued entrenchment of a permanent political class over the years.

Many people don't like Trump, but will grasp at any opportunity to lash out at and unseat the entrenched federal elite that causes so much damage to this country's fiscal and cultural health.

 

Your question is " Why would you trust someone who never ran a business to help economy?"
My answer is Trump is channeling P. T. Barnum with a mix of channeling Richard Nixon---P,T. Barnum was the carnival barker that coined the phase "There's a sucker born every minute" & spent years padding his bank account proving that statement---And Tricky Dick won the Presidency by dividing,insulting & vilifying,not to mention lying,stealing & paying to cover up his crookedness!------
There is a comedian that is pretty popular around California & Nevada,his name is Will Durst--his Mo is taking newspaper stories & developing his comic routine from those newspaper stories --- by saying "you can't make this stuff up"---He is hilarious
Yep,the GOP have "all" bought their tickets to "The Greatest Hoax on Earth"--------suckers----

 

Thanks for the advice, but we got the spiel from conservatives in 2000 with how we needed Bush because he was such a great businessman.

That didn't work out so well.

 

How could government workers milk the taxpayers then?

 

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/video]

The Democrats were in denial that their cash cows Fannie and Freddie were in trouble......that's why it took at least $187 Billion to bail them out.

 

great post!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBCSi4ERVq0

 

For those interested in truth on the Democrats and Freddie and Fannie, as opposed to the distorted spin of an right wing propaganda internet video, here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml


And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever passed by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's links to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/

 

what do you mean?
2008 was caused by government dems, not bush
wingnut

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfPPbwZV96U

 

All Hillary has ever run is her mouth when she is telling lies.

 

fire them

 

Speaking of Chestnuts.

No Matilda...F&F did not cause the banking debacle...they were more victim than cause.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...reddie-didnt-cause-the-housing-crisis/250121/

 

Government Dems had not controlled Congress since 1995 nor the Administration since 2001 in the years the housing bubble blew up to its absurd levels and then started imploding.

But you seem like a good Republican. You spout the RW propaganda BS very faithfully. So I wouldn't expect facts and the truth to be part of your discourse.

 

but 2008 was caused by fed fanny and bill clinton
so wahts up?

 

Fire them all!

 

Clinton caused the housing bubble and recession?

[video=youtube;hDou01X5d28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28[/video]

So what's up?

- - - Updated - - -

Starting with the House and Senate.

 

Fannie and Freddie were REQUIRED to devote a percentage to "affordable housing", read that lending to folks who could barely pay it back. No doubt HUD just kept bumping that percentage up and up and up.

[video=youtube;cMnSp4qEXNM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related[/video]

The Democrats insisted there was nothing wrong at Fannie and Freddie. We all know the results now don't we.