Speechless....

DarqueKnight

cnh wrote: »

In fact, considering just how much education this group actually has you have to wonder why it seems so "dense" most of the time!

Intellectual density is not always the blame. Sometimes political inertia must be considered. Changing the course of a large, massive thing is not always as easy as it seems, particularly if many (voting) members of society are benefitting from that large massive thing.

Let me illustrate with an actual real world example. There is a state that has too many public universities. The current number of universities was appropriate for the population and economy the state had 30 years ago. Due to declining population, most of the state's universities struggle with enrollment, and by extension, tuition funding issues. The right number of state universities should be about half the current number. The state legislature knows some universities need to be closed, but this means the loss of thousands of jobs in the affected legislator's home district. Any legislator, or state executive, who votes to close a state university would be committing political career suicide.

Legislators, and state executives, know that most people aren't going to think about the greater good that would be served by consolidating state universities. They are going to think about all the jobs, and convenience, lost when the local university was closed.

What to do?

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

No, I'm just pointing to the fact that such info is important.

Sure it is. That's why every member of Congress has a website that provides his/her biographical info. I thought this was well understood by everyone. Considering how political candidates public and private lives are put under an electron microscope, I am surprised that anyone would think that a politician's biographical and work history would be shrouded in secrecy.

tonyb wrote: »

What constitutes a reasonable length of time in the private sector is up to each individual to decide. Can't make that call however if the info is not there...correct ?

Ohhhh, but the info should be right there on each and every member of Congress' websites...correct? We can also assume that the constituents of Congress members believed that they had the required experience and knowledge to serve them well...correct?.

brgman

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You brought up a good point which piqued my curiosity regarding the educational attainments and prior occupations of members of Congress. According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, this is the educational profile of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives:

"As has been true in recent Congresses, the vast majority of Members (92% of House Members and 99% of Senators) at the beginning of the 112th Congress held bachelor?s degrees. The CQ Roll Call Member Profiles indicate that 26 Members of the House and 1 Senator have no educational degree beyond a high school diploma. Seven Members of the House, but no Senators, have associate?s degrees as their highest degree, and one House Member has an LPN (nursing) degree. Eighty-three Members of the House and 16 Senators earned a master?s degree as their highest educational degree. Law degrees are held by 167 Members of the House (38% of the total House) and 55 Senators (55% of the total Senate). Of the Members holding a law degree, four (three House Members and one Senator) also hold an LLM (Master of Laws) degree. Eighteen Representatives (but no Senators) have doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees, and 20 Members of the House and 4 Senators have a medical degree."



Based on the official Congressional membership profile, I am not sure that the terms "intellectual elite" and "scholar" could be accurately applied. Most of them are lawyers, but law degrees are not considered "elite" degrees in academic circles.

While some members of Congress come from financially and socially privileged family backgrounds, it appears that they all were gainfully employed (working for a real paycheck at a real world job) prior to entering public service.

I am curious to know what you thought these people did prior to entering public service.

According to "Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile", a research document obtained from the official U.S. Senate website, www.senate.gov, these are the prior occupations of the current members of the Senate and House of Representatives. A copy of the document is attached at the end of this post:

Of 439 members of the House, 167 (38%) list law as their occupation.

Of 100 members of the senate, 55 (55%) list law as their occupation.

The occupational distribution of the remaining members of Congress is as follows:

81 educators, employed as teachers, professors, instructors, fundraisers, counselors, administrators, or coaches (68 in the House, 13 in the Senate);

2 medical doctors in the Senate, plus 1 veterinarian and 1 ophthalmologist;

15 medical doctors in the House (including one delegate), plus 2 dentists, 1 veterinarian, 1 ophthalmologist, and 1 psychiatrist

2 psychologists (both in the House),

1 optometrist (in the Senate), and

6 nurses (all in the House);

5 ordained ministers, all in the House;

39 mayors (29 in the House, 10 in the Senate);

11 state governors (all in the Senate)

9 lieutenant governors (3 in the Senate, 6 in the House, including 2 Delegates);

10 judges (all in the House),

26 prosecutors (8 in the Senate, and 18 in the House, including a Delegate), who have served in city, county, state, federal, or military capacities;

1 cabinet secretary, 1 secretary of the navy, and one ambassador (all in the Senate);

4 Peace Corps volunteers, all in the House;

3 sheriffs and 2 deputy sheriffs, 2 FBI agents, a border patrol agent (all in the House), and a firefighter in the Senate;

1 physicist, 1 chemist, 6 engineers, and 1 microbiologist (all in the House);

4 radio talk show hosts (two House, two Senate),

3 radio or television broadcasters (all in the House), 6 reporters or journalists (2 in the House, 4 in the Senate),

1 radio station manager, 1 public television producer, 1 sportswriter, and 1 television commentator (all in the House);

7 accountants in the House and 2 in the Senate;

4 pilots, all in the House, including a former pilot of Marine One (the President?s helicopter), and 1 astronaut, in the Senate;

2 screenwriters (1 House, 1 Senate),

1 comedian, in the Senate,

1 documentary film maker, in the Senate,

2 professional football players, both in the House;

17 farmers (15 House, 2 Senate),

11 ranchers (9 House, 2 Senate);

2 almond orchard owners, both in the House,

1 farm manager (a Senator),

1 cattle farm owner (a Senator),

1 vintner (a House Member),

1 fruit orchard worker (a House Member);

7 social workers in the House and 2 in the Senate;

5 current members of the military Reserves (3 House, 2 Senate),

4 current members of the National Guard (3 House, 1 Senate).

Other occupations listed in the CQ Roll Call Member Profiles, although not necessarily the professions practiced immediately before entering Congress, include restaurateur, real estate agent, auctioneer, car dealership owner, construction worker, software engineer, paper mill worker, stockbroker, insurance agent, and funeral home owner.

All led by a community organizer from Kenya!:eek::eek::eek:

DarqueKnight

brgman wrote: »

All led by a community organizer from Kenya!:eek::eek::eek:

It's one of Affirmative Action's greatest success stories.:cheesygrin::cheesygrin::cheesygrin:

cnh

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Intellectual density is not always the blame. Sometimes political inertia must be considered. Changing the course of a large, massive thing is not always as easy as it seems, particularly if many (voting) members of society are benefitting from that large massive thing.

Let me illustrate with an actual real world example. There is a state that has too many public universities. The current number of universities was appropriate for the population and economy the state had 30 years ago. Due to declining population, most of the state's universities struggle with enrollment, and by extension, tuition funding issues. The right number of state universities should be about half the current number. The state legislature knows some universities need to be closed, but this means the loss of thousands of jobs in the affected legislator's home district. Any legislator, or state executive, who votes to close a state university would be committing political career suicide.

Legislators, and state executives, know that most people aren't going to think about the greater good that would be served by consolidating state universities. They are going to think about all the jobs, and convenience, lost when the local university was closed.

What to do?

That is a good example. But unfortunately, political discourse in the U.S. is usually not this focused. Campaigns are mostly rhetorical in nature and the platforms candidates run on are broad swatches. One needs only follow so-called primary debates to see that the issues are not specific but "ideological" wars. Very little specific information of the kind that you are posting is "ever" seen in such exchanges and the media "rarely" presses candidates to provide such specific cases. And even when they do, it may be one or two examples (at the most) which we will then hear about for the next six months.

I respect your call for specificity, facts and data but alas these are not what politicians run on. In fact if the discourse became factual how would you ever be able to "spin" it in your direction?

cnh

brgman

darqueknight wrote: »

it's one of affirmative action's greatest success stories.:cheesygrin::cheesygrin::cheesygrin:

touche' dk

DarqueKnight

cnh wrote: »

I respect your call for specificity, facts and data but alas these are not what politicians run on.

So true...and so sad. However, politicians are not completely at fault. If people demanded facts and data in order to make rational, informed decisions, that is what the politicians would have to provide.

To a large extent, people get the kind of leadership they deserve. As with the issue of Americans who perpetuate the illegal immigration problem by hiring illegals, and the issue of Americans who perpetuate the illegal drug problem by continuing to get high, the problem of political leadership ineffectiveness is perpetuated by people who refuse to take a responsible role in choosing qualified leadership.

cnh wrote: »

In fact if the discourse became factual how would you ever be able to "spin" it in your direction?

In a republican (representative) form of government such as ours, with democratically elected leaders, the electorate is responsible for educating themselves on the issues and the candidates and then making rational and wise leadership choices. If they did so, the delusions and deceptions of "spin" would go away. But, who really wants to take the time to properly research issues and candidates and make emotionally detached choices for leadership based on character and qualifications?

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Sure it is. That's why every member of Congress has a website that provides his/her biographical info. I thought this was well understood by everyone. Considering how political candidates public and private lives are put under an electron microscope, I am surprised that anyone would think that a politician's biographical and work history would be shrouded in secrecy.



Ohhhh, but the info should be right there on each and every member of Congress' websites...correct? We can also assume that the constituents of Congress members believed that they had the required experience and knowledge to serve them well...correct?.

Thats after they are already seated/elected. How much of that info is available before hand ? Some I'm sure is, but finer points I'm sure aren't....or at least anything that can be construed as possibly being damaging to a candidate. After all, who would want damaging info out there anyway ? Only after the fact do we get a properly vetted candidate. Not saying it happens in every case, but seems like more and more lately.

Good exmple you set forth on the University's in a state. If it were me, I'd ax them because above the jobs you have to be a good steward of the peoples purse. If all you worry about are jobs that get subsidized with tax payer money, then you have what we have today.

nooshinjohn

Based on the official Congressional membership profile, I am not sure that the terms "intellectual elite" and "scholar" could be accurately applied. Most of them are lawyers, but law degrees are not considered "elite" degrees in academic circles.

I don't care about academic circles... in the real world, any degree above a bachelor's degree is considered an advanced degree in my book, and therefore qualifies as intellectual elite in terms of education. That most are lawyers means that they are experts in the fine art of prevarication, and twisting logic in ways Einstein could never begin to fathom. I trust none of them.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Thats after they are already seated/elected. How much of that info is available before hand?

More than most people care to know about. The info tag under your name says you are located in Chicago, home of some of the nastiest, most brutal, mud-slingingest political campaigns in history.

tonyb wrote: »

Some I'm sure is, but finer points I'm sure aren't....or at least anything that can be construed as possibly being damaging to a candidate. After all, who would want damaging info out there anyway?

The opposing candidate(s)!!!!

tonyb wrote: »

Only after the fact do we get a properly vetted candidate.

In this day and age where intimate details of a candidate's sex life are exposed, how could any rational person running for office, especially high national office, expect their education and employment history to remain hidden?

tonyb wrote: »

Not saying it happens in every case, but seems like more and more lately.

Well, if that's your perception...you are welcome to it. I assure you it has no basis in reality.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I don't care about academic circles... in the real world, any degree above a bachelor's degree is considered an advanced degree in my book, and therefore qualifies as intellectual elite in terms of education.

Thanks for the clarification.

BlueFox

nooshinjohn wrote: »

... in the real world, any degree above a bachelor's degree is considered an advanced degree in my book, and therefore qualifies as intellectual elite in terms of education.

And that is the problem. You live in a fantasy world populated by communists, socialists, Marxists, terrorists, jihadists, and worst of all, liberals. :eek:

nooshinjohn

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In this day and age where intimate details of a candidate's sex life are exposed, how could any rational person running for office, especially high national office, expect their education and employment history to remain hidden?

Have to ask Barry on that one. we know nothing about the man's education, and little else about the guy except what he has done in office.

As far as education goes, I think it safe to say that 85% of the population would share my opinion on that, but hey, what do I know. I believe in God and guns.

nooshinjohn

BlueFox wrote: »

And that is the problem. You live in a fantasy world populated by communists, socialists, Marxists, terrorists, jihadists, and worst of all, liberals. :eek:

I don't mind liberals, because at least they are honest enough to let you know where they stand. Take the rose colored glasses off and do some homework and you will find that everything from Occupy to tragedy down in Florida is being run by or used by the groups you highlighted. Think I am wrong? Just ask a Panther, or Minister Farakahn.

The Summer of '68 has begun again...

DarqueKnight

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Have to ask Barry on that one. we know nothing about the man's education, and little else about the guy except what he has done in office.

Are you referring to former D.C. mayor Marion Barry? He is the only politician named Barry I am familiar with.

Marion Barry graduated with a B.S. degree in chemistry from LeMoyne-Owens College in 1958 and an M.S. in Organic Chemistry from Fisk University in 1960. It should not be too difficult for the interested reader to find the name and graduation date of Mr. Barry's Memphis, Tennessee high school if they want to go back that far.

tonyb

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In this day and age where intimate details of a candidate's sex life are exposed, how could any rational person running for office, especially high national office, expect their education and employment history to remain hidden? .

Not exactly hidden, but not given the scrutiny that their sex lives manage to get. Which is more important ?

Chicago politics.....do I really need to go on about that ? Generally speaking, information is controlled and managed so the average voter decides on what they want you to decide on, to put forth a perception of a candidate, not necessarily facts. Even the opposing candidate will dig up dirt and spin that as well to change perception. Nothing is as it seems in politics and truth has left the building long before Elvis did.

cstmar01

nooshinjohn wrote: »

That's what we got last time, and look how well that is working so far. I personally think that the egghead Poindexters, and Ivy League nitwits that have been running the show have no freeking clue about how things should be. They paint a wonderful Utopia-type picture and then try to bend and break everything that stands in their way of their vision.

Give me somebody from the real world, farmer and car dealers, a lawyer or two and a school teacher... hell even a guy that fixes a semi truck for a living. I bet the people living a real life in real America somewhere has a better handle of what is wron and how to fix it than these snobish intellectual elites and scholars that collectively could't wipe their a$$es without help. God forbid they ever actually have held a real world job and earn a real paycheck from teh sweat of their brow.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I don't care about academic circles... in the real world, any degree above a bachelor's degree is considered an advanced degree in my book, and therefore qualifies as intellectual elite in terms of education. That most are lawyers means that they are experts in the fine art of prevarication, and twisting logic in ways Einstein could never begin to fathom. I trust none of them.

John, you went from saying give you a lawyer or two to you don't trust any of them.

nooshinjohn

I did say a lawyer or two... but in a legislative body of 535 individuals, capping them at two should be enough to limit the damage they can do.:cheesygrin:

My comment was directed towards the entire membership of Congress.

tonyb

Whats even funnier than lawyers in congress, is older congressmen when they leave congress and try and open their own buisness. They run into so many regulations, they wonder why they never did anything about it when they had the power to do so. George Mc Govern is a good example. Just goes to show the disconnect from every day buisness people and those making the laws. Also makes you wonder if they had no idea of all the regulations, what the heck did they do before getting into congress. Obviously not a small buisness owner.....most of them anyway.

cnh

I say we give them all of them some psychotropic drugs and "regulate" their "minds"! Regulations for the "regulators" and a free for all for "everyone" else. But then we'll all have to read some Thomas Hobbes on that War of all against all?

I teach on the same floor as our "economists"; what a group that is! Don't get me started! The invisible hand is in their underpants! lol And we ALL know what it is doing there!

Bluefox:
You live in a fantasy world populated by communists, socialists, Marxists, terrorists, jihadists, and worst of all, liberals. *

I've actually lived in that world! And it's not that bad--there are worse realities than these--much worse. lol

cnh2

nooshinjohn

cnh wrote: »

I teach on the same floor as our "economists"; what a group that is! Don't get me started! The invisible hand is in EACH OTHER'S underpants! lol And we ALL know what it is doing there!

cnh2

Fixed it for ya!:loneranger:

cnh

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Fixed it for ya!:loneranger:

A most excellent edit, John!

cnh

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Whats even funnier than lawyers in congress, is older congressmen when they leave congress and try and open their own buisness. They run into so many regulations, they wonder why they never did anything about it when they had the power to do so. George Mc Govern is a good example. Just goes to show the disconnect from every day buisness people and those making the laws. Also makes you wonder if they had no idea of all the regulations, what the heck did they do before getting into congress. Obviously not a small buisness owner.....most of them anyway.

George McGovern is a good example of how not to be successful in business, but his experience is not typical of most former congressmen who wisely use the knowledge, experience and contacts they acquired in public service, along with prior training and experience, to launch a business they are qualified to run.

The truth is that most former congressmen do very well after they leave public office if they go into a business that they know something about. In George McGovern's case, his hotel business (a 150 room hotel and conference center) did not succeed due to a variety of factors:

1. He knew nothing about the hotel business, but it was a dream of his to own one. He said he had always been fascinated by the hotel business. His professional background was in academia. He was a history professor prior to entering politics.

2. He went into the hotel business during a severe local recession in 1988.

3. The hotel was on leased property and the lease terms were very expensive.

4. Dr. McGovern's comment about lack of knowledge about government regulations was more indicitive of his lack of proper planning and research rather than the "oppressive" nature of government regulations. His unsuccessful experience in the hotel business has been echoed by scores of entertainers and professional athletes who went into the restaurant business.

Dr. McGovern used proceeds from his successful public speaking engagements to fund his hotel venture. Had he invested in another type of business, such as a consulting firm that would have utilized his expertise in teaching, writing and public speaking, he probably would have been very successful. Strong evidence of that possibility is his long and successful record of book authorship and public speaking, which continues to the present day. Dr. McGovern is 89 years old and published his latest book in November of 2011.

I started an engineering consulting firm in 2002. I don't like all the regulatory rigamarole and local, state and federal paperwork that pertains to my business, but none of that has prevented me from making money.

tonyb

Granted....he was lacking in knowlege on how to even run a buisness, but even so, the hoops he had to jump to even get the doors open were surprising to even him. Sure, many from congress open buisnesses after they leave and are very successful, but how many use their influence to get around regulations that the average joe can not ? Every buisness is different, some with more regulation than others. There's a fine line between regulation for the general safety and well being of the general public, and regulation that hampers growth in the private sectors. Agriculture/farming would be a good example. Also the food industry, resturaunts in particular. I looked into starting my own catering buisness out of my home......no frickin' way they will let you without major coin, not to mention all the certifications/fee's you'll need to cough up.

In your case, consulting.....your major service is your own labor with no additional equipment to be certified, coarses to take, License to be had along with a gazillion fee's to pay. Your most likely also not in conflict with federal and seperate state regulations which can be on opposite sides.

I'll give you an example, my sister, a registered nurse, is looking into working as a traveling nurse. There are organizations that hire nurses for certain time periods at various locations. Problem is, for her to work in another state, she needs to get certified and take classes and pay fee's.....for every state. This amounts to over 10 grand for each state. She already has close to 40 years experience. Healthcare industry, another regulatory mess.

BlueFox

While the thread title is "Speechless...." apparently it is a misnomer, as the author is anything but speechless. :rolleyes:

nooshinjohn

BlueFox wrote: »

While the thread title is "Speechless...." apparently it is a misnomer, as the author is anything but speechless. :rolleyes:

Irony is not lost on the left, is it? I guess the truth being spoken allowed is the equivalent of garlic to a vampire.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

While the thread title is "Speechless...." apparently it is a misnomer, as the author is anything but speechless. :rolleyes:

Your opinion, so thats cool. If I started the thread and said nothing more I would get blasted for that too. Can't please everyone, so I don't try, nor do I even care.

I enjoy discussion, DK is always happy to engage even if we don't agree on some things. It is OK to disagree and not have to occupy a city and cast stones at one another.

DarqueKnight

tonyb wrote: »

Granted....he was lacking in knowlege on how to even run a buisness, but even so, the hoops he had to jump to even get the doors open were surprising to even him.

The point I was trying to make was that Dr. McGovern was a poor example of post-congressional business failure because he was/is not typical of the vast majority of ex-congressmen who go on to successful careers in fields they are qualified for. The hoops he had to jump through were only surprising because he did not do the required research.

As I noted in a previous post, most congressmen were in the legal profession prior to going into politics and this is what they return to after exiting politics. This may be shocking, but the vast majority of law firms are small businesses.

It is interesting that you went from saying this:

tonyb wrote: »

Also makes you wonder if they had no idea of all the regulations, what the heck did they do before getting into congress. Obviously not a small buisness owner.....most of them anyway.

To this:

tonyb wrote: »

Sure, many from congress open buisnesses after they leave and are very successful, but how many use their influence to get around regulations that the average joe can not?

First the argument was that most former congressmen are too unknowlegeable, too inexperienced and too "out of touch" with the "real world" to run a successful business. When gaping holes in this line of reasoning were presented, the argument shifted to "well yeah, many former congressmen are successful in business, but only because they use their influence to unfair advantage".

Anyone using influence, whether political or financial, to get around regulations is breaking the law. Regular businessmen do this all the time. Well known examples are all the Wall Street investment bankers who went to jail for insider trading. If you do a little research, I'm sure you can find some examples of local restaurant and nightclub owners who have resorted to bribes to circumvent local health and liquor license laws. Do you have any credible statistics that prove that former congressmen use illegal influence to a higher degree than the general business population?

tonyb wrote: »

In your case, consulting.....your major service is your own labor with no additional equipment to be certified, coarses to take, License to be had along with a gazillion fee's to pay. Your most likely also not in conflict with federal and seperate state regulations which can be on opposite sides.

The practice of engineering is regulated in each state by a state board of registration. I pay a personal license fee and a firm license fee. The personal license requires an 8 hour examination, and fees, after receipt of the B.S. degree, then four years of engineering experience, then another 8 hour examination, and fees. I am required to take 15 hours per year of continuing education courses related to my practice area. If I want to practice in another state, most states will grant reciprocal registration with the payment of fees. Some states require an applicant registered in another state to go through their licensing process. I do not have any issues with conflicting state and federal laws.

tonyb wrote: »

I'll give you an example, my sister, a registered nurse, is looking into working as a traveling nurse. There are organizations that hire nurses for certain time periods at various locations. Problem is, for her to work in another state, she needs to get certified and take classes and pay fee's.....for every state. This amounts to over 10 grand for each state. She already has close to 40 years experience. Healthcare industry, another regulatory mess.

I have only a cursory knowledge of the medical profession, so I can't comment on whether the fees you stated are accurate or if they are excessive or reasonable. You complain about political "spin", but your comments in this thread seem to indicate that you are not always willing to present all facets of a discussion topic. I do know two nurse practitioners who travel to several states and they have never complained about abusive certification requirements. To the contrary, they are elated about the money they make.

tonyb wrote: »

I enjoy discussion, DK is always happy to engage even if we don't agree on some things. It is OK to disagree and not have to occupy a city and cast stones at one another.

I enjoy discussion as well. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to sift through all the opinion presented as substantiated fact.

p51tj

As others have said, no faith in either party, with no light at the end of the tunnel....maybe a long trip to Costa Rica is in order!...lol!