Sorry, ROMNEY Ass-Wipers! HISTORY SHOWS A PRESIDENT WITH "BUSINESS EXPERIENCE" Is Shit!

[Bad Lookin']

BUT MOST OF US KNOW THAT ...


HISTORICALLY, U.S. PRESIDENTS WITH "BUSINESS EXPERIENCE" HAVE BEEN BAD
FOR THE COUNTRY!



"Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted
out of office after a single term only three elected presidents:
Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were
successful businessmen before they were president. And the only
successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W.
Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term."

"There is a saying: 'If you want to live like a Republican, vote
Democratic.' Perhaps it should be amended to: 'If you want to live
like a successful Republican businessperson, vote for a Democrat
without business experience.' ”

But since this presidential race is largely about race, you Obama-
hating nit- and halfwits will vote for his lying hair-dying opponent
anyway.

Won't you?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Can a businessman help the economy? For presidents, the answer has
been no."

By Robert S. McElvaine
October 19, 2012

Mitt Romney likes to argue that his business experience has prepared
him for the challenges of the presidency, particularly in stoking
economic recovery. In his speech accepting the Republican presidential
nomination, Romney declared that President Obama “took office without
the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was
essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a
business.”

But historically, has the economy been healthier in times when the
president has had a business background?

As any good executive would, let’s look at the numbers.

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted
out of office after a single term only three elected presidents:
Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were
successful businessmen before they were president. And the only
successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W.
Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year
after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year
of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration —
the four presidents with successful business careers had the four
worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom
the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business:
Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than
45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience
than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on
average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval
Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP
has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no
business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

The story is much the same when we look at share prices in this time
frame.

None of the five presidents under whom the stock market has had its
best performances — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan,
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower — had significant business
experience. Topping the list are the two most recent career-politician
presidents, Clinton and Obama, both of whom pursued economic policies
that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, insist are anti-business
and economically disastrous.

Three of the four presidents under whom the stock market has had its
worst showings — Hoover, Carter and George W. Bush — had successful
business experience. Carter, the only Democratic president in this
period who prospered in business, had run a very profitable peanut
enterprise. But his economic record as president was so bad that
Reagan defeated him in 1980 in large part by pointing to the very high
“misery index” created by high unemployment and inflation under
Carter.

Stock values have averaged a robust 14.2 percent annual gain under
presidents without business experience, and they have fallen by an
average of 3 percent annually under those with that “essential”
qualification.

The most startling figures emerge when we combine party and business
experience. Historically, a Democrat without business experience has
been extraordinarily better for the economy and the stock market than
a Republican who had a career in business. In the past 84 years, GDP
has grown 7 percent per year under Democrats without business
experience (FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama) and fallen by 0.2
percent per year under Republicans with business experience (Hoover
and the two Bushes). The Dow has risen an average of 16.8 percent per
year under Democrats without business experience and has fallen by 3.7
percent per year under Republicans with business experience.

It is often said that a president has little control over the economy,
but that is only partially true. A president and governmental policies
act with the economy as farmers do with crops. Crops and economies
grow on their own, but how well they grow is greatly affected by the
actions of those providing water, fertilizer, weed removal and so
forth.

There is a saying: “If you want to live like a Republican, vote
Democratic.” Perhaps it should be amended to: “If you want to live
like a successful Republican businessperson, vote for a Democrat
without business experience.”

Romney might need to find a better way to sell his experience.

[Robert S. McElvaine, the author of “The Great Depression: America
1929-1941,” is a history professor at Millsaps College in Jackson,
Miss.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-a-businessman-help-the-eco...