At least in the private sector!

This is a stunning graph --- no wonder Obama cannot put forth any good economic plan.

http://blog.american.com/?p=7572

Nearly 50% of cabinet appointees over the last century had private sector experience; under Obama, just a stunning 7%. He has surrounded himself with people who have no idea what they are doing and who haven't a clue about how to run a business.


Change we can believe in ................

Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

You mean like nominating your personal attorney for SCOTUS? :rolleyes:

God, where did they get those numbers?

It took like 5 minutes to roll through wikipedia, look at bios, etc., and find that the numbers are way off. Do they know how to calculate percentages?

7% is flat out wrong.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

The chart contains the facts; the relative comparison with past administrations is absolutely incredible, and even surprised me.

Then again if undermining capitalism is the goal, why would he appoint any entrepreneurs, just load up on socialist types and others from academia, media and law who have never met a payroll or understand the cost of an employee.

cbus4life wrote: God, where did they get those numbers?

It took like 5 minutes to roll through wikipedia, look at bios, etc., and find that the numbers are way off. Do they know how to calculate percentages?

7% is flat out wrong.

So you are saying the JP Morgan research report is not correct. Gotcha.

Yep, i am.

It is flat out wrong, you can through and look at the bios of all of them, and significantly more than 7% have private experience.

Look at the rebuttal to this from politifact, it lays it all out right there.

I just don't get it, i mean, i'm reading about the cabinet members right now, and more than 7% have private sector experience, where did they get these numbers?

Hell, Donovan, Chu, and Salazar all have significant and distinguished private sector experience. Hell, Salazar even owned a Dairy Queen and the like in Colorado, so he even has connections to "small-business owners."

I can only find two that really have no significant private sector experienced, as did politifact.

And, as PTown said, it all depends on the position as to whether or not private sector experiece is an absolute necessity.

Chu was the head of the Electronics Lab at AT&T Bell. Though, i will admit, managing in that scientific-research setting isn't quite the same, but still, it is experience.

Many other senior administration officials have business experience in the private sector, well above the numbers Beck and others have cited.

QuakerOats wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

The chart contains the facts; the relative comparison with past administrations is absolutely incredible, and even surprised me.

Then again if undermining capitalism is the goal, why would he appoint any entrepreneurs, just load up on socialist types and others from academia, media and law who have never met a payroll or understand the cost of an employee.

Only, they don't list their methodology, sources, nor explain definitions or provide names.

The blog post should have linked to the original study so the reader can get the exact information from the source. Just saying, look at this graph and trust my numbers and methodology doesn't work.

If I was to give this post to my boss and say, he look at this graph, it means this, trust me. He would look at me and say give me what you did, how you did it, what context, what sources, etc.

Finally, saying something from AEI is fact is like saying something from the Center for American Progress is fact. It is a conservative thinktank with an agenda.

from ptowns link:

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.


I find no fault in excluding these types.

So, what kind of private-sector experience are we looking for?

And, i was simply responding to the fact that you claimed that 7% had "no private sector" experience, which simply isn't true.

But, if we're looking for only a certain type of experience, than you might have a point.

And, i disagree that you should exclude Salazar.

If you exclude him, than not sure who you could include.

QuakerOats wrote: from ptowns link:

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.


I find no fault in excluding these types.

I do.

Sec. Chu was the head of a lab, which is a large part of the DoE budget. The labs are essential for maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile, working and looking for green and new energy sources, and working with new computers.

Sec. Chu has more experience with that than almost any private sector person. Which goes back to my first point in that it depends on the office. The Dept. of Energy is really nuclear weapons and science, not so much private sector stuff. Therefor, I do not want a private sector person, mainly, in charge of the DoE. I want someone who knows the labs and the complex.

Let's give you and BHO the benefit of the doubt; where are the sound economic policy initiatives necessary to reduce the encroachment of government and allay the serious concerns of private business owners that will allow for more private investment and job creation? {And by the way, that is an underhand softball .....}

QuakerOats wrote: Let's give you and BHO the benefit of the doubt; where are the sound economic policy initiatives necessary to reduce the encroachment of government and allay the serious concerns of private business owners that will allow for more private investment and job creation? {And by the way, that is an underhand softball .....}

(Scratches head)huh?

I said it depends on the cabinet job. Obviously, for economic growth and private investment, I would want someone who has experience in the private sector.

But, to imply that the private sector barrometer to having government cabinet members and that a majority should come from large private sector backgrounds doesn't make sense.

I think you need to break it down cabinet by cabinet. Some cabinets, like energy favor someone who has minimal private sector background, but has experience in the labs. Others, like Defense, favor someone who has private sector experience.

I'd also say, what is wrong with the cabinet headed by someone who has dedicated their entire career in the department? Say for example, the Department of Health (Random example). They do not have private experience, but know the department extremely well, and know the good and bad parts.

I can think of a few cabinet positions that should be eliminated.

I'd argue that all but 3 or 4 of the positions (and that might be a stretch) should be held by someone with some private sector experience.

I can think of entire departments to be eliminated........ we wouldn't miss a beat.

Was it Stewart or Colbert who made the joke, but kind of true, about the workers in DC when the snow was thrashing them. they announced that "only essential government employees need to get to work today". So only a select few came in. Why the hell do they need the rest of them, if those select few could run things? One of them made a joke to that extent, but it kind of rings true in this world of over-bloated government positions out there. In the private sector, if your job isn't needed it's a tap on the shoulder and a severance check if you're lucky.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

rebuttal to the facts Now that is hilarious....

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

rebuttal to the facts Now that is hilarious....

lol, didn't even notice I said that. Thanks. Kind of an oxymoron ha. Should be a rebuttal to the information provided.

if you don't like the admin or its policies, fine, it's your right...but why post lies or at best accuracies in order to make a point? I can make up my own facts about anything and make them "stunning"...doesn't mean they are true.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

rebuttal to the facts Now that is hilarious....

lol, didn't even notice I said that. Thanks. Kind of an oxymoron ha. Should be a rebuttal to the information provided.

Actually he should have stated it was a rebuttal to the so called "facts" that certain posters on here get from the Republican party who are notorious for making shit up and fooling a great majority of the sheep in this Country.

Yep. The OP's article point can easily be refuted by anyone with basic searching skills.

Bigdogg wrote:
"...a great majority of the sheep in this Country."

You mean all those who were told by the state-run media that the socialists were really centrist democrats .... and they bought it?

Bigdogg wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Ghmothwdwhso wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Note, AEI is notoriously conservative think tank.
And here is the rebuttal to the facts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/02/glenn-beck/beck-says-less-10-percent-obama-cabinet-members-ha/

It really matters what the cabinet position is to really define if private sector experience is needed. So, I take the numbers with some caution.
I'd also add that the numbers are from November and since then Congress has approved more, not sure how many more, but more lower level cabinet officials.

rebuttal to the facts Now that is hilarious....

lol, didn't even notice I said that. Thanks. Kind of an oxymoron ha. Should be a rebuttal to the information provided.

Actually he should have stated it was a rebuttal to the so called "facts" that certain posters on here get from the Republican party who are notorious for making shit up and fooling a great majority of the sheep in this Country.

Do you mean like Bush fooled all of those Ivy league educated Dems, into believing that Iraq, at one time, possesed WMD? If that's the case, the Dems in Congress were nothing but sheep.

Why did you vote for sheep???????????