Obama picks Bain executive as top economic deputy

[Professor Peabody]

Obama picks Bain executive as top economic deputy

9:43 AM 09/13/2013 Neil Munro White House Correspondent

President Barack Obama’s new top economic deputy is a former management consultant who worked for Gov. Mitt Romney’s Bain & Company investment firm. The appointment of Jeff Zients as head of the National Economic Council is likely to annoy some union officials and some liberal groups who are focused on declining working-class wages and growing poverty, and it clashes with the populist anti-business invective used by Obama and his aides on the 2012 campaign trail to paint Romney as uncaring.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/13/obama-picks-bain-executive-as-top-economic-advisor/

You just can't make this stuff up! A year ago Mitt Romney & Bain & Company were just pure evil and bad for the United States. Bain & Company were just exporters of jobs. Why then would Obama appoint Zients as head of the National Economic Council? The irony here is just delicious and the hypocrisy nauseating. :rollseyes:

[AmazonTania]

Warren Buffet avoids taxes, becomes Obama's economic advisor and gets to be Obama's spoke's person on how all the other wealthy should pay taxes.

Yep, seems like a pretty causal thing in politics.

[jillian]

Even funnier... a year ago you were saying how wonderful bane capital was.

*shrug*

[KC]

Not very surprising when you consider how very similar Obama and Romney were. Conservatives had nothing to gain if Romney would have been elected, and nothing to lose if Obama was reelected.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338/07/338-0718195257-Mitt-Obama-Barack-Romney-Travels-in-Transmedia-Custom.jpg

[jillian]

He worked for Bane a long time ago...

On January 17, 2012, he was named acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Office_of_Management_and_Budget) and assumed office on January 27, 2012, his second turn as acting director, a position he held until April 24, 2013. In 2009, President Obama (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Barack_Obama) appointed him to the new position of United States Chief Performance Officer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Chief_Performance_Officer) and was Zients was confirmed by the Senate (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/United_States_Senate) to be Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Office_of_Management_and_Budget) in the federal government of the United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States).[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-Obama-1) Zients left the Office of Managment in Budget in April 2013.

Zients worked in management consulting for Mercer Management Consulting (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Mercer_Management_Consulting) and Bain & Company (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bain_%26_Company) until his appointment as chief operating officer of DGB Enterprises, a holding company for the Advisory Board Company (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Advisory_Board_Company), Corporate Executive Board (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Corporate_Executive_Board) and Atlantic Media Company (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Atlantic_Media_Company).[7] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-SEC-7)Zients was the chairman (2001–2004), chief executive officer (1998–2000), and chief operating officer (1996–1998) of the Advisory Board Company (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Advisory_Board_Company) and former chairman (2000–2001) of the Corporate Executive Board (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Corporate_Executive_Board,_USA).[8] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-WBJ-8) Both companies were founded by David G. Bradley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/David_G._Bradley) and provide research and advice to corporations around the globe on best practices in management, strategy and operations. Zients and Bradley took each of the companies public through successful initial public offerings (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Initial_public_offering) that made both men multimillionaires (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Millionaire).[6] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-OKeefe-6)[9] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-OHara-9) At age 35, Zients was named to Fortune Magazine's "40 under 40" (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/40_under_40_(Fortune_Magazine)) with an estimated wealth of $149 million.[10] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-10)
Zients also cofounded the Urban Alliance Foundation (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Urban_Alliance_Foundation).


Zients founded[11] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-Nichols-11) and was the managing partner of privately held Portfolio Logic LLC, an investment firm primarily focused on business services companies,[12] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-12) that included Best Practices (Emergency Services management), Timbuk2 Designs (a retailer of backpacks, apparel and messenger bags) and Pediatrics Services of America. He was a member of the board of directors of XM Satellite Radio (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio) until its 2008 merger, and[8] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-WBJ-8)[13] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-CNP-13) a board member at Sirius XM Radio (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Sirius_XM_Radio) until his Senate confirmation. [14] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-:0-14) [15] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-15) Zients had also served on the boards of Revolution Health Group (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Revolution_Health_Group), Best Practices and Timbuk2 Designs.[9] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-OHara-9)[11] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-Nichols-11)[13] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-CNP-13)[16] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-16)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Zients

so funny that someone would focus on Bane. lol... i guess when you have nothing else to say. *shrug*

[jillian]

Not very surprising when you consider how very similar Obama and Romney were. Conservatives had nothing to gain if Romney would have been elected, and nothing to lose if Obama was

yeah, unless you care about the economy, the courts or whether we bomb bomb bomb iran.

then i guess they're exactly the same...

[KC]

yeah, unless you care about the economy, the courts or whether we bomb bomb bomb iran.

then i guess they're exactly the same...

Both mismanage the economy, appoint partisan judges and if you haven't noticed the current administration just tried to get us to bomb bomb bomb Syria. Not a world of difference. Just two slightly different versions of awful leadership.

[jillian]

Both mismanage the economy, appoint partisan judges and if you haven't noticed the current administration just tried to get us to bomb bomb bomb Syria. Not a world of difference. Just two slightly different versions of awful leadership.

actually that's not correct. the economy does very well under democrats. it goes into recession when republicans run it.

again, they're only the same if you don't care about any of the issues i mentioned. that's a meme i really don't understand. and i'm not quite sure why anyone would let themselves believe it.

do you think citizens united would have been determined the way it was if the majority of appointees weren't republican appointees?

do you think if romney were president we'd be involved in war with syria (given that dick cheney was his military advisor, i think you know what the answer is).

you can keep saying it's all the same. but that's an extraordinarily narrow view.

[Chris]

Even funnier... a year ago you were saying how wonderful bane capital was.

*shrug*



Link to professor or amazon saying that, jillian?

[Chris]

Not very surprising when you consider how very similar Obama and Romney were. Conservatives had nothing to gain if Romney would have been elected, and nothing to lose if Obama was reelected.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/338/07/338-0718195257-Mitt-Obama-Barack-Romney-Travels-in-Transmedia-Custom.jpg



Obama and Romney are just clones of Bush after all, just more of the same.

[Chris]

actually that's not correct. the economy does very well under democrats. it goes into recession when republicans run it.

again, they're only the same if you don't care about any of the issues i mentioned. that's a meme i really don't understand. and i'm not quite sure why anyone would let themselves believe it.

do you think citizens united would have been determined the way it was if the majority of appointees weren't republican appointees?

do you think if romney were president we'd be involved in war with syria (given that dick cheney was his military advisor, i think you know what the answer is).

you can keep saying it's all the same. but that's an extraordinarily narrow view.



Actually, that's false, this is the slowest recovery from a recession we've ever seen. The economy is limping back. The rest your post is just poisoning the well with if you disagree you don't care.

[The Little Dictator]

Obama picks Bain exc as top economic deputy

is that not the most ironic statement you've ever read?
aaaaahahahahha

[AmazonTania]

actually that's not correct. the economy does very well under democrats. it goes into recession when republicans run it.

The only President to reside under genuine economic prosperity was President Dwight Eisenhower. He's not a Democrat.


again, they're only the same if you don't care about any of the issues i mentioned. that's a meme i really don't understand. and i'm not quite sure why anyone would let themselves believe it.

do you think citizens united would have been determined the way it was if the majority of appointees weren't republican appointees?

Section 441B of McCain-Fiengold is unconstitutional, regardless of which appointees presided the ruling.

[Mainecoons]

Jillian thinks our present McJobs economy with something like 15 percent unemployed or underemployed and a stock market balloon caused by money printing is economic prosperity.

Jillian, are you a one percenter? Since they have taken more than 120 percent of income gain since Obama got in office, meaning all the rest lost ground, in order to call this economy prosperous, you'd just about have to be one.

That would explain a lot.

[KC]

actually that's not correct. the economy does very well under democrats. it goes into recession when republicans run it.

again, they're only the same if you don't care about any of the issues i mentioned. that's a meme i really don't understand. and i'm not quite sure why anyone would let themselves believe it.

do you think citizens united would have been determined the way it was if the majority of appointees weren't republican appointees?

do you think if romney were president we'd be involved in war with syria (given that dick cheney was his military advisor, i think you know what the answer is).

you can keep saying it's all the same. but that's an extraordinarily narrow view.

Is it a narrow view because you disagree with it or is it a narrow view because it ignores some of the political sideshow? I believe that if he would have had Congress backing, we'd currently be at war in Syria thanks to Obama. I believe Mitt Romney would have pushed for the same.

I also believe that the economy does well despite the government's policies, rarely because of them. What legislation during the Clinton Administration cause the Dot Com Bubble? Also, weren't Republicans in control of Congress during his Administration? Aren't both Republicans and Democrats primarily Keynesians?

You are right about Citizens United; the dissenting opinion was held by Democratic appointees. But even so, how big of a difference did Citizens United make? Yes, there's a lot of big money in politics now. More than there was before. But prior to Citizens United Republicans and Democrats both took huge campaign contributions from donors they intended to reward with legislative favors. Citizens United didn't cause the problems we have with money in and politics, it just made things worse.

[Professor Peabody]

actually that's not correct. the economy does very well under democrats. it goes into recession when republicans run it.

When was that?

[jillian]

Actually, that's false, this is the slowest recovery from a recession we've ever seen. The economy is limping back. The rest your post is just poisoning the well with if you disagree you don't care.

what i said was correct. the economy did not go into recession under this president. and when baby bush left we were losing about 800,000 jobs a month.

and if the House would get out of the way, the recovery would be much more robust. but instead of the economy, the House cared only about the ACA and personhood laws.

doesn't much help the economy.

[Professor Peabody]

what i said was correct. the economy did not go into recession under this president. and when baby bush left we were losing about 800,000 jobs a month.

and if the House would get out of the way, the recovery would be much more robust. but instead of the economy, the House cared only about the ACA and personhood laws.

doesn't much help the economy.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=20090101&d2=20131231
Obama

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp-growth.png?s=gdp+cqoq&d1=19810101&d2=19851231
Reagan

One is getting the economy on a roll, the other is a failure of economic policies. It's easy to tell the difference.

[jillian]

When was that?

there's an old adage...never ask a question you don't know the answer to.


The common viewpoint is that Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) are good for business, which is good for the economy. Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy. Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.
Right?
Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history, Bob Deitrick and Lew Godlfarb have done it in a great, easy to read book; “Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box (https://www.bullsbearsandtheballotbox.com/)” (available at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Bulls-Bears-Ballot-Box-Performance/dp/1599322889)) Their heavily researched, and footnoted, text brings forth some serious inconsistency between the common viewpoint of America’s dominant parties, and the reality of how America has performed since the start of the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).

*snip*



Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession)) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations




http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

[Professor Peabody]

there's an old adage...never ask a question you don't know the answer to.


I know the answer, I'm just waiting to rip to shreds your response. So go ahead and answer.

[Chris]

what i said was correct. the economy did not go into recession under this president. and when baby bush left we were losing about 800,000 jobs a month.

and if the House would get out of the way, the recovery would be much more robust. but instead of the economy, the House cared only about the ACA and personhood laws.

doesn't much help the economy.


What you said was incorrect.



the economy did not go into recession under this president. and when baby bush

I didn't argue the economy didn't go into recession under Bush, so why that diversionary straw man? What I argued is under Obama it's the slowest recovery we've ever seen.



and if the House would get out of the way, the recovery would be much more robust.

Now you at least are on the same page with what I said. But I must ask why you assume this? What is the basis for your assumption? No historicism, please, what rationale do you have?