cold iron wrote:
These numbers help explain why these last eight years were disastrous for the USA. I read the last item and then look at Trump's Cabinet. No wonder Washington, DC is in a turmoil. Trump's picks are bosses who expect their employees to work. These are Eye Opening Numbers. This is what bothers a lot of people about Trump. He won't accept a can't do attitude, or inexperienced, incompetent performance. He will get results; it just might not be smooth or pretty.
Here are some amazing stats: Make sure you read to the bottom. An eye opener!
1. These 10 States now have more people on welfare than they have employed!
California
New Mexico
Mississippi
Alabama
Illinois
Kentucky
Ohio
New York
Maine, and
South Carolina
2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.
What's the problem with that much support?
Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day
To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for 40 hour week, while the average job pays $24.00 an hour.
3. Check the last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is: A real-life business not a government job.
Here are the percentages:
38% T. Roosevelt
40% Taft
52% Wilson
49% Harding
48% Coolidge
42% Hoover
50% F. D. Roosevelt
50% Truman
57% Eisenhower
30% Kennedy
47% Johnson
53% Nixon
42% Ford
32% Carter
56% Reagan
51% GH Bush
39% Clinton
55% GW Bush
8% Obama !
90% Trump
This helps explain the bias, if not the incompetence, of the last administration: ONLY 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent - the least, by far of the last 19 presidents! And these people tried to tell our corporations how to run their businesses?
How could Obama, president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he had never worked for one?
Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."
Probably a good idea to pass this on, because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main stream media, or from the alphabet networks.
Plus Kevin and Turdbird will deny it all.
These numbers help explain why these last eight ye... (
show quote)
My career was with private companies doing business with the DOD. For about 8 years I was housed in government facilities as a contractor, and had a major insight into DOD employees we worked with and for during that time, especially in the Pentagon. There were a number of high level government executives associated with the program, and they had staff personnel to support them. From this exposure, I had a few observations that bear upon your comment:
1. Meetings for "teamsmanship", chaired by senior executives, were a daily occurrence, and they d**gged in a lot of superfluous people and entertained a lot of extraneous subjects, with a sheer waste of time. Ten minutes with the right three or four people would have sufficed. OK, fifteen minutes max!
2. Administrative personnel were largely inefficient, which put a load on us contractors to make up the difference.
3. There was a strong rivalry between various contracting companies for influence on key government people, which was costly in time and effort to overcome.
4. There was a strong rivalry between several government agencies involved for the prize of increased scope of their piece of the action, with serious delays resulting.
5. Project Management was strong-minded, stubborn and often misdirected and seriously lacking in knowledge of the wide range of specific technologies being used, and suffered mightily from poor se******n or assignment of personnel, planning; and, embarrassingly, several abject failures of portions of the effort occurred, with consequent reworks needed.
Senior Executives were therefore far less than effective, and were not ones that I would have hired for the private sector. The thought of pushing this caliber of executive into department level roles in the federal government, or senior staff in the WH was very difficult to contemplate; They were narrow-banded in a broadband program.
Somewhat to my surprise, the project sailed ahead and was eventually completed with a lot of fanfare and kudos for all, despite the very evident d**g effect, and years of delay.