Obama Cabinet Member Experience

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
This graph speaks volumes.

Just look at the Dem vs Pub appointments and which sector they came from. :shifty:

We are in deep doodoo.

obamacabinet.jpg
 
I love the silence.

However,

It would be nice if some of you manned-up and admitted the mistake you made voting for Obama. Hopefully you realize being naive and uniformed is not the best way to go thru life.
 
You do realize that people are allowed to have a different opinion then yourself?

And when you say being naive and uninformed how exactly were McCain and Palin going to help me?

What you have to understand is there are people like myself who have worked from the age of 12, lacked health insurance from the age of 14-17, I've helped my mother pay the mortgage for quite a few years, and when I was accepted into a good University couldn't attend due to financial reasons, and yet here I am in a community college with two jobs transferring to the university that originally accepted me. I understand that's capitalism and I have no intentions of to stop working.

Do I agree with everything Obama does? Of course not. Did I read both candidates books and platforms? Yes I did and like any other person would do I chose the candidate that would benefit me.

Also answering most of the time is pointless, you lost and you're bitter that's fine. But you're attacking people for disagreeing with your views by calling them names?

Also didn't bump this thread http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=59416 after the two posters in it were clearly wrong, we saw your thread said alright cool inexperienced cabinet and moved on.
 
And when you say being naive and uninformed how exactly were McCain and Palin going to help me?....... and like any other person would do I chose the candidate that would benefit me.
Is the implication here that you sell your vote to the candidate who's the highest bidder?

Also answering most of the time is pointless, you lost and you're bitter that's fine. But you're attacking people for disagreeing with your views by calling them names?
This isn't a football, this is real life.
What you apparently don't understand is that EVERYONE lost after the '08 elections. We'd have lost less if McCain had won.
 
Also answering most of the time is pointless, you lost and you're bitter that's fine. But you're attacking people for disagreeing with your views by calling them names?

Trust me. If you voted for Obama you were either uniformed or naive.
Simple as that. No name calling. Call it a reality check. How long it takes for you to realize you were either naive or uniformed will be critical to the future survival of this once great Country.
 
Is the implication here that you sell your vote to the candidate who's the highest bidder?


This isn't a football, this is real life.
What you apparently don't understand is that EVERYONE lost after the '08 elections. We'd have lost less if McCain had won.

I'm confused by your highest bidder remark, if a party supports unions and I'm in a union wouldn't I vote for the party that supports unions? Or would that be selling my vote to the highest bidder because their agenda benefits me?

And given a scenario where McCain would have won then passed away would we really have been better off with Sarah Palin? Sure we wouldn't have this big healthcare mess but would you trust her to be "the leader of the free world"?
 
I'm confused by your highest bidder remark, if a party supports unions and I'm in a union wouldn't I vote for the party that supports unions? Or would that be selling my vote to the highest bidder because their agenda benefits me?

What do you mean by "support"? If you mean handouts from the government or regulations that benefit you, then you are saying that a) you need the help and are incapable of succeeding on your own, and more importantly b) that you should benefit as someone else's expense.

And given a scenario where McCain would have won then passed away would we really have been better off with Sarah Palin? Sure we wouldn't have this big healthcare mess but would you trust her to be "the leader of the free world"?

I trust her a helluva lot more then I trust Obama. She would have actually done what she considers best for this country, not for her personally and her ideology, like Obama is clearly doing. But she would have been vice president, not president. There is a difference. Barney the dinosaur would be a better leader the Biden.
 
Sure we wouldn't have this big healthcare mess but would you trust her to be "the leader of the free world"?

And you trusted a community organizer with NO prior business experience. Heck, I would argue NO political experience of worth either.
But he could read the words of others typed on a teleprompter, couldn't he?

That was the only qualification you voted for in reality, oh that and the fact he calls himself 'black'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And given a scenario where McCain would have won then passed away would we really have been better off with Sarah Palin? Sure we wouldn't have this big healthcare mess but would you trust her to be "the leader of the free world"?
In a word, yes.
 
Well - I don't particularly like the fact that Obama's cabinet members seem to be almost entirely from the public sector - but heck GWBush's cabinet private sector make-up was 3rd highest on the chart, and he didn't do so great with the economy... Kennedy's was 2nd from the bottom and Clinton's was 4th from the bottom (if you count Obama) and the economy seemed to do just fine during those terms...

So, does this chart really tell us much about how the economic state of the union will be because of the private sector experience of the cabinet? And how many seats in the cabinet really have to deal with private sector agenda, only about 1/2.
 
What do you mean by "support"? If you mean handouts from the government or regulations that benefit you, then you are saying that a) you need the help and are incapable of succeeding on your own, and more importantly b) that you should benefit as someone else's expense.

No I'm not saying handouts

I'm perfectly fine with with succeeding on my own, that's why I have 2 jobs and a 4.0. By support I meant the party supporting laws that would say benefit the United Association stricter laws for people to become say a Master Plumber which would intern protect the American citizen's safety as a whole. Watch the damage a single handyman I watch DIY network can do to an entire neighborhoods well water supply with one illegal sewage line.

By the way http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_wrights.cfm

Or should I not support the candidates who are pro union? Supporting the other party would benefit anyone who isn't in a Union, the majority. I should be selfless and help the greater good?

But please do tell me I was uninformed didn't, McCain use a teleprompter during some speeches? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/us/politics/06mccain.html
 
No I'm not saying handouts

I'm perfectly fine with with succeeding on my own, that's why I have 2 jobs and a 4.0. By support I meant the party supporting laws that would say benefit the United Association stricter laws for people to become say a Master Plumber which would intern protect the American citizen's safety as a whole. Watch the damage a single handyman I watch DIY network can do to an entire neighborhoods well water supply with one illegal sewage line.

By the way http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_wrights.cfm

Or should I not support the candidates who are pro union? Supporting the other party would benefit anyone who isn't in a Union, the majority. I should be selfless and help the greater good?

But please do tell me I was uninformed

Unions tend to support polices that benefit them. Every law infringes on freedom. So if a law is being aimed at benefiting a certain group, it is at the expense of others.

If a law gives you an unfair advantage, it disadvantages others.

You should support a candidate who's policies will work in your own best interest. But don't buy into the rosy image of policies presented by it's proponents. Critically analyze the policies and record of the candidate.
 
Well - I don't particularly like the fact that Obama's cabinet members seem to be almost entirely from the public sector - but heck GWBush's cabinet private sector make-up was 3rd highest on the chart, and he didn't do so great with the economy... Kennedy's was 2nd from the bottom and Clinton's was 4th from the bottom (if you count Obama) and the economy seemed to do just fine during those terms...

So, does this chart really tell us much about how the economic state of the union will be because of the private sector experience of the cabinet? And how many seats in the cabinet really have to deal with private sector agenda, only about 1/2.
It tells us what we can expect - bureaucrats who have disdain or lack of understanding of the private sector.

Bush's economy was pretty good until the last year of his two terms. He had massive growth during the middle 4 years. Obama's crashing and burning and continuing to do things to hurt the economy.
 
It tells us what we can expect - bureaucrats who have disdain or lack of understanding of the private sector.

Bush's economy was pretty good until the last year of his two terms. He had massive growth during the middle 4 years. Obama's crashing and burning and continuing to do things to hurt the economy.

But what does this graph tell us about the economy? Nothing really- FDR is in the top third, but I don't think you are singing his praises.

And Bush's last 2 years results can somewhat be laid at the policies he followed the first 6 years.

The graph is interesting, but it doesn't really show us much of anything. It certainly doesn't show trends regarding economic success and percentage of cabinets' experience in the private sector.
 
Provided that the graph is accurate,
What it shows is that Obama administration has a dramatically lower number of cabinet members with private sector experience.

It demonstrates that the vast majority of his cabinet have spent their entire careers in the public sector.
So the policies being advanced right now are being done with virtual no real-world, private experience.

It's not a graph that necessarily tracks economic conditions and proposes some kind of 1:1 correlation between economic conditions and cabinet make-up..
Obama is clearly, and radically, breaking tradition here though.

And it EXPLAINS why his administration is so aggressively advancing policies that most small businessmen know are going to hurt the country, the economy, and continue to cost jobs.
 
But what does this graph tell us about the economy? Nothing really- FDR is in the top third, but I don't think you are singing his praises.

And Bush's last 2 years results can somewhat be laid at the policies he followed the first 6 years.

The graph is interesting, but it doesn't really show us much of anything. It certainly doesn't show trends regarding economic success and percentage of cabinets' experience in the private sector.
Straw man. The graph doesn't try to do any of those things.
 
Straw man. The graph doesn't try to do any of those things.

So what is the graph trying to do? Create panic? It doesn't even state how it is compiling data - years experience? Or just experience in general - Ah, Salazar started his own law firm, does that count as private sector experience or not - and it is just 1 point or does it take into account 9 years of experience and weigh it that way.

So, Cal, if the cabinet is creating agenda - doesn't the house have to vote on that agenda - wouldn't that be a better graph to look at - how the house and senate break down according to this barometer of private sector experience?

To me it looks like scare tactics.. .and we don't even know where it is from.
 
So what is the graph trying to do?
It's trying to demonstrate a point-
That's really about it.

So, Cal, if the cabinet is creating agenda - doesn't the house have to vote on that agenda - wouldn't that be a better graph to look at - how the house and senate break down according to this barometer of private sector experience?
I can think of an infinite number of things that would be "better" or provide more information. But that's not what we have here.

To me it looks like scare tactics.. .and we don't even know where it is from.
I don't think it's right to call it a scare tactic, if you think it's an accurate representation of things. You can draw your own conclusion. If you don't support capitalism, perhaps you think this reflects favorably upon this administration. That it's full of "intellectuals" "academics" and professional government types- the people that "know" how things should work.

Do you think that it creates a false impression?
 
In case anyone would like to find the original source of this graph:
http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

It's supposed to be from a J.P. Morgan research report.

A friend sends along the following chart from a J.P. Morgan research report. It examines the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to in seeking advice about helping the economy. It includes secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy, and Housing & Urban Development, and excludes Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—432 cabinet members in all.

When one considers that public sector employment has ranged since the 1950s at between 15 percent and 19 percent of the population, the makeup of the current cabinet—over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector—is remarkable.
 
I don't think it's right to call it a scare tactic, if you think it's an accurate representation of things. You can draw your own conclusion. If you don't support capitalism, perhaps you think this reflects favorably upon this administration. That it's full of "intellectuals" "academics" and professional government types- the people that "know" how things should work.

Do you think that it creates a false impression?
I think that it really doesn't say much of anything as far as using it to compare to past administrations. It really looks like private/public sector experience doesn't have much to do with anything. Some administrations have had a lot of it, and economically you could say they were lacking, while others that had little did rather well economically.

I think it is worrisome that Obama's administration seems to be weighed very heavily on the 'public' side, but, historically, what that really means, is anyone's guess.
 
I think that it really doesn't say much of anything as far as using it to compare to past administrations. It really looks like private/public sector experience doesn't have much to do with anything. Some administrations have had a lot of it, and economically you could say they were lacking, while others that had little did rather well economically.

I think it is worrisome that Obama's administration seems to be weighed very heavily on the 'public' side, but, historically, what that really means, is anyone's guess.
If it "doesn't have much to do with anything," then why is it worrisome?
 
This is merely ANOTHER case where FALSE PROPAGANDA about Obama, perpetuated by Beck and his brown-nosed followers are used to smear our President:

Beck says less than 10 percent of Obama Cabinet has worked in private sector

Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck has seized on a claim circulating on the Internet to argue that the Obama administration has little understanding of American business and is too focused on expanding government.

"History has proven over and over again — and so has the post office, for that matter — that government is not the answer," Beck said on his Nov. 30, 2009, show. "You need to unleash the people. The entrepreneurs. And if you are wondering how it is that the government can't see that — how they can be pondering even bigger stimulus packages as they stare the failure of the first one right in the face — I'll show you. Here are the past presidents and the number of appointees in their Cabinets with private sector experience -- folks that have done more than write on the chalkboard; they've been out there, in the real world. Let's compare President Nixon -- he's over 50 percent -- with President Obama: Under 10 percent of his appointees have any experience in the private sector."

We did a little digging and found that the claim is based on a study by Michael Cembalest, the chief investment officer for J.P. Morgan Private Bank. In a Nov. 24, 2009 column titled "Obama's Business Blind Spot" and published on Forbes.com, Cembalest wrote, "In a quest to see what frame of reference the administration might have on this issue, I looked back at the history of the Presidential Cabinet. Starting with the creation of the Secretary of Commerce back in 1900, I compiled the prior private-sector experience of all 432 cabinet members, focusing on those positions one would expect to participate in this discussion: Secretaries of State; Commerce; Treasury; Agriculture; Interior; Labor; Transportation; Energy; and Housing & Urban Development."

He continued, "Many of these individuals started a company or ran one, with first-hand experience in hiring and firing, domestic and international competition, red tape, recessions, wars and technological change. Their industries included agribusiness, chemicals, finance, construction, communications, energy, insurance, mining, publishing, pharmaceuticals, railroads and steel; a cross-section of the American experience. (I even gave [one-third] credit to attorneys focused on private-sector issues, although one could argue this is a completely different kettle of fish.) One thing is clear: The current administration, compared with past Democratic and Republican ones, marks a departure from the traditional reliance on a balance of public- and private-sector experiences."

In an accompanying chart, Cembalest reported that in the Obama administration, fewer than 10 percent of the Cabinet appointees counted under those rules had private sector experience. According to the chart, all other administrations going back to Theodore Roosevelt's had rates in at least the high 20s, with the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations approaching 60 percent. (He wrote in a footnote that the data came from a number of sources, including capsule biographies of Cabinet members posted on the Web site of the University of Virginia's Miller Center for Public Affairs.)

The chart -- typically reprinted by itself, without Cembalest's accompanying narrative -- circulated in the conservative blogosphere for a couple of days before eventually being picked up by Beck.

We wondered if the claim was right, so we did some math of our own.

In Obama's Cabinet, at least three of the nine posts that Cembalest and Beck cite -- a full one-third -- are occupied by appointees who, by our reading of their bios, had significant corporate or business experience. Shaun Donovan, Obama's secretary of Housing and Urban Development, served as managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., where he oversaw its investments in affordable housing loans.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu headed the electronics research lab at one of America's storied corporate research-and-development facilities, AT&T Bell Laboratories, where his work won a Nobel Prize for physics. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in addition to serving as Colorado attorney general and a U.S. senator, has been a partner in his family's farm for decades and, with his wife, owned and operated a Dairy Queen and radio stations in his home state of Colorado.

Three other Obama appointees had legal experience in the private sector.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke spent part of their careers working as lawyers in private practice. Clinton and Vilsack worked as private-sector lawyers at the beginning of their careers, while Locke joined an international law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, after serving as governor of Washington state. At the firm, Locke "co-chaired the firm's China practice" and "helped U.S. companies break into international markets," according to his official biography. That sounds like real private sector experience to us.

Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates, a consulting firm that advises international corporations on political and economic conditions overseas.

The occupants of the two remaining Cabinet posts cited in the chart do not appear to have had significant private-sector experience: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Obama's Cabinet has even more private-sector experience if you go beyond the nine. Two of the Obama appointees could be considered entrepreneurs -- the very people Beck would "unleash." Vice President Joe Biden, officially a Cabinet member, founded his own law firm, Biden and Walsh, early in his career, and it still exists in a later incarnation, Monzack Mersky McLaughlin and Browder, P.A. (The future vice president also supplemented his income by managing properties, including a neighborhood swimming pool.) And Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag founded an economic consulting firm called Sebago Associates that was later bought out by a larger firm.

It's also worth noting that if you examine a larger group of senior Obama administration appointees, you'll find that more than one in four have experience as business executives, according to a June study by National Journal. That compared with the 38 percent the magazine found eight years earlier at the start of George W. Bush's administration. That's at least three times higher than the level claimed by Beck.

We tracked down Cembalest to ask about his methodology. He said any effort to address the topic is heavily subjective, and he expressed regret that his work had been used for political ends, saying that it was not his intention to provide fodder for bloggers and talk show hosts.

Cembalest said that he did discount the corporate experience of the three lawyers we identified -- Clinton, Vilsack and Locke -- and added that he awarded nothing for Donovan, Chu or Salazar, even though we found they had a fair amount private sector experience. Cembalest acknowledged fault in missing Salazar's business background, saying he would have given him a full point if he had it to do over again. But he added that the kind of private-sector experiences Chu and Donovan had (managing scientific research and handling community development lending, respectively) did not represent the kind of private-sector business experience he was looking for when doing his study.

"What I was really trying to get at was some kind of completely, 100 percent subjective assessment of whether or not a person had had enough control of payroll, dealing with shareholders, hiring, firing and risk-taking that they'd be in a position to have had a meaningful seat at the table when the issue being discussed is job creation," Cembalest said.

Cembalest said he has "written 250,000 words in research over the last decade, and every single thing I've ever done -- except this one chart -- was empirically based on data from the Federal Reserve" or another official source. "This is the one time I stepped out into making judgment calls, and I assure you I won't do it again. ... The frightening thing about the Internet is that people copy one chart from what you write and then it goes viral. So I've learned a lesson here that these kinds of issues are best left addressed by the people who practice them day in and day out."

Which brings us back to how Beck used Cembalest's data. We'll acknowledge that rating someone's degree of private-sector experience is an inexact science, and it's true that Beck accurately relayed the information contained in Cembalest's chart. But at PolitiFact we hold people accountable for their own words. So we rate Beck's claim False.
 

Members online

Back
Top