Posted on 11/30/2016 5:40:02 PM PST by Innovative
So... who do you want working for you - the guys whose skill set means that everybody wants ‘em, or a bunch of losers who coundn’t get a job?
I said the word “if”. If he is then great, if he isn’t then he should be.
Just saw the news today where Mississippi Power had been building a new complex that is 4 billion over and late too boot. The 4 billion over is really impressive because the original estimate was 3 billion....the exact antithesis of how Trump gets things done.
We don’t care how much money they’ve got, as long as they love their country and will do their best to dispatch their duties under the constitution.
Well, successful people usually are wealthy.
The Washington Post didn’t ‘get’ Trump... and they don’t ‘get’ his appointments.
Maybe the Post should spend more time on Democrats and why they’re losing. Everywhere.
Can you share your source for that? I doesn’t seem right to me but I’d like to see their reasoning.
The original J.P. Morgan paper where this appeared isn't linked but they do say:
"Schulz states that the chart excludes the Postmaster General, Navy, War, Health, Education & Welfare, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security positions."
There's no question his cabinet was light on private sector experience but Hillary, Salazar, Vilsack, Duncan, Chu, Emaunel and Orszag each had some.
I'm sure there's some reasoning behind the chart but I don't see how they could possibly get to less than 10%.
The chart coming up with 10% was compiled 12/09.
If you add in data post 2009, like Hillary’s private sales to foreign governments, it perhaps could significantly boost the average.
Right, and all the people I mentioned were from Obama's first cabinet in 2009.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.