PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama's Job Czar moving jobs to China...


petegz28
07-27-2011, 02:03 PM
Yes, Mr. Immelt..the CEO of GE.


http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-26/business/29817324_1_ge-healthcare-x-ray-business-china-last-year



Since he took over at GE not only has their stock tanked, the company has laid off 34K people state-side and created 24k jobs globally.


This is the guy our wonderful leader made our Job Czar.


Nice.

Easy 6
07-27-2011, 02:16 PM
In a word, sickening.

But this disease infects both sides of the aisle.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:30 PM
There are some cuts we can make right away.

alpha_omega
07-27-2011, 02:32 PM
But they are paying plenty of taxes, right?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:35 PM
But they are paying plenty of taxes, right?

Is 7% overall plenty?

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 02:38 PM
I'm sick of considering these companies American, anyway. They are anything, but patriotic. They don't pay hardly squat to the coffers and exploit slave labor. The population of China and labor rate is why they are choosing to move.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 02:42 PM
I'm sick of considering these companies American, anyway. They are anything, but patriotic. They don't pay hardly squat to the coffers and exploit slave labor. The population of China and labor rate is why they are choosing to move.

I think my problem with this is not so much him moving the jobs but doing it as he sits as our Jobs Czar. That really looks...well it looks pretty fucked up!

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 02:48 PM
I think my problem with this is not so much him moving the jobs but doing it as he sits as our Jobs Czar. That really looks...well it looks pretty ****ed up!I agree. Both issues suck, but the fact that he is the job czar makes this disgusting. These prima donnas aren't working for "We the People" anymore and haven't for some time. Now it's just blatant and running rampant in our country.

Easy 6
07-27-2011, 03:07 PM
Strengthening America by shipping jobs to Communist China!

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 05:28 PM
No defense of these actions, liberals?

I do like that this occurred in the swing state of Wisconsin. The POTUS had to either attack his own leader of American business for taking away American jobs or he loses the potential electorals in Wisconsin.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 05:35 PM
I think my problem with this is not so much him moving the jobs but doing it as he sits as our Jobs Czar. That really looks...well it looks pretty ****ed up!

Smacks of central planning.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:01 PM
As CEO of General Electric, a multinational corporation (not just an American company anymore) he serves the board and the stock-owners in running a company that produces products and importantly, creates wealth.

As a White House adviser, he assists the administration in understanding the complex issues involved in running a business. He is not supposed to be creating jobs in this role for Americans. He is supposed to help the administration put together a plan that will help job creation.

I don't see, from that article or this news, that this guy nor Obama did anything unethical or wrong or have some sort of conflict of interest that can't continue.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:02 PM
Smacks of central planning.

This was one of the administration's moves that was a nod to the business environment.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:05 PM
Strengthening America by shipping jobs to Communist China!

State Capitalism > Third Way Socialism

petegz28
07-27-2011, 06:13 PM
As CEO of General Electric, a multinational corporation (not just an American company anymore) he serves the board and the stock-owners in running a company that produces products and importantly, creates wealth.

As a White House adviser, he assists the administration in understanding the complex issues involved in running a business. He is not supposed to be creating jobs in this role for Americans. He is supposed to help the administration put together a plan that will help job creation.

I don't see, from that article or this news, that this guy nor Obama did anything unethical or wrong or have some sort of conflict of interest that can't continue.

While I agree they are two different roles, and GE shareholes would argue with you about his efforts at creating wealth, it still looks terrible for the man who is the Job Czar of the country to move jobs of his company out of the country.

That's like a physical trainer telling you to eat nothing but healthy foods as they stuff a triple cheese down their face.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:42 PM
While I agree they are two different roles, and GE shareholes would argue with you about his efforts at creating wealth, it still looks terrible for the man who is the Job Czar of the country to move jobs of his company out of the country.

That's like a physical trainer telling you to eat nothing but healthy foods as they stuff a triple cheese down their face.

You do realize he's not a job czar, right (and that there's no such official position as a czar)? He's the chairman of an advisory board created by the administration. His job as such is not to create American jobs.

Warrior5
07-27-2011, 06:48 PM
As CEO of General Electric, a multinational corporation (not just an American company anymore) he serves the board and the stock-owners in running a company that produces products and importantly, creates wealth.

As a White House adviser, he assists the administration in understanding the complex issues involved in running a business. He is not supposed to be creating jobs in this role for Americans. He is supposed to help the administration put together a plan that will help job creation.

I don't see, from that article or this news, that this guy nor Obama did anything unethical or wrong or have some sort of conflict of interest that can't continue.

OK, just so I'm straight on this:

Immelt is CEO of a GE (a multinational corporation).
GE essentially didn't pay taxes last year; in fact, GE, a multinational corporation bailed out by US taxpayers, posted some of the highest profits of any corporation last year. GE subsequently lays off +30k stateside jobs while shipping +20k jobs overseas (which is OK since it's a multinational corporation). Immelt, dual-hatted as Obama's Jobs Czar, is supposed to help the adminstration put together a plan for job creation.

No conflict of interest.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 06:48 PM
You do realize he's not a job czar, right (and that there's no such official position as a czar)? He's the chairman of an advisory board created by the administration. His job as such is not to create American jobs.

What's your point? He was picked as an advisor to the President on creating jobs for the country and he is shipping them off. Yes, Jenson, we all know it is not his job to create jobs. Again, as I said earlier, it looks bad. It looks very bad.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 06:49 PM
OK, just so I'm straight on this:

Immelt is CEO of a GE (a multinational corporation).
GE essentially didn't pay taxes last year; in fact, GE, a multinational corporation bailed out by US taxpayers, posted some of the highest profits of any corporation last year. GE subsequently lays off +30k stateside jobs while shipping +20k jobs overseas (which is OK since it's a multinational corporation). Immelt, dual-hatted as Obama's Jobs Czar, is supposed to help the adminstration put together a plan for job creation.

No conflict of interest.

Yes, let us not forget that GE took TARP $'s.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 07:39 PM
Yes, let us not forget that GE took TARP $'s.We the people are going to have to start our own appointed officials to round up the criminals running amok. This is sickening at this disregard for our country.

trndobrd
07-27-2011, 08:31 PM
Looks like Ed didn't get the memo from corporate HQ.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42704624#42704624

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42704624#42704551

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 08:42 PM
What's your point? He was picked as an advisor to the President on creating jobs for the country and he is shipping them off. Yes, Jenson, we all know it is not his job to create jobs. Again, as I said earlier, it looks bad. It looks very bad.

Who is in the wrong here?

petegz28
07-27-2011, 09:07 PM
Who is in the wrong here?

Immelt of course. Wrong from a moral and ethical statement anyway. Here is a guy who tool TARP $'s, has laid off American workers, has the honor of advising the President of the US on jobs and then ships jobs of his company overseas.

If you don't see something wrong with that then you need a ethical checkup.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 09:13 PM
Immelt of course. Wrong from a moral and ethical statement anyway. Here is a guy who tool TARP $'s, has laid off American workers, has the honor of advising the President of the US on jobs and then ships jobs of his company overseas.

If you don't see something wrong with that then you need a ethical checkup.

Does he even make these decisions? Even assuming he was the one behind them, you really haven't shown me how it's unethical.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 09:28 PM
Does he even make these decisions? Even assuming he was the one behind them, you really haven't shown me how it's unethical.

He is Chairman and CEO....I would think he carries a lot of weight in the decisions.

You think it ethical to take tax payer $'s for your company (one of the largest in the world), then lay people off and\or move jobs to China?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 09:37 PM
He is Chairman and CEO....I would think he carries a lot of weight in the decisions.

You think it ethical to take tax payer $'s for your company (one of the largest in the world), then lay people off and\or move jobs to China?

It's not ideal, but I don't see how it's unethical.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 09:49 PM
It's not ideal, but I don't see how it's unethical.

Then I think, imo, you need to brush up on your ethics. You don't take tax payer monies then layoff said tax payers to provide jobs outside the country. You kinda owe the tax payer a little somethin-somethin.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 09:57 PM
Then I think, imo, you need to brush up on your ethics. You don't take tax payer monies then layoff said tax payers to provide jobs outside the country. You kinda owe the tax payer a little somethin-somethin.

Wasn't it their financial institutions that got money, and not this x-ray industry? Those are different things. And even if they did something like pool their monies together, could they never layoff employees again? Or could they only lay them off after so many years? When does it become ethical to run the business as you would have?

go bowe
07-27-2011, 10:04 PM
Wasn't it their financial institutions that got money, and not this x-ray industry? Those are different things. And even if they did something like pool their monies together, could they never layoff employees again? Or could they only lay them off after so many years? When does it become ethical to run the business as you would have?

too many questions...

one at a time, please...

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:04 PM
Wasn't it their financial institutions that got money, and not this x-ray industry? Those are different things. And even if they did something like pool their monies together, could they never layoff employees again? Or could they only lay them off after so many years? When does it become ethical to run the business as you would have?

Irrelevant. If that's the case then their X-ray division could have given their financial divison the money. Since Immelt has taken over GE he has laid off 34k American workers and created 24k jobs overseas. Sorry, that's just a schmuck in my book once he stuck his hand out for our money.

When does it become ethical? I don't know if it ever really is ethical. That being said, when you are trotting around with the President of this country as his Job Czar then I think you need to be setting an example.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 10:09 PM
Jenson71,

You can't be serious. To put it in terms you can understand, they stole the money from taxpayers, because it didn't benefit the tax payers in the least. In fact, IT COST US JOBS AND PAID THEM HANDSOMELY. Add to the fact, that they didn't hardly pay squat to the coffers and there should be criminal indictments made. THEY STOLE.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 10:12 PM
As CEO of General Electric, a multinational corporation (not just an American company anymore) he serves the board and the stock-owners in running a company that produces products and importantly, creates wealth.

As a White House adviser, he assists the administration in understanding the complex issues involved in running a business. He is not supposed to be creating jobs in this role for Americans. He is supposed to help the administration put together a plan that will help job creation.

I don't see, from that article or this news, that this guy nor Obama did anything unethical or wrong or have some sort of conflict of interest that can't continue.

I agree, it isn't unethical. However, the POTUS looks foolish once again for hand picking a man to advise him on bringing more jobs to American citizens. Once more, President Obama chooses the wrong person to represent his best interests. This is a theme he had had haunt him since before the election.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:14 PM
Irrelevant. If that's the case then their X-ray division could have given their financial divison the money. Since Immelt has taken over GE he has laid off 34k American workers and created 24k jobs overseas. Sorry, that's just a schmuck in my book once he stuck his hand out for our money.

When does it become ethical? I don't know if it ever really is ethical. That being said, when you are trotting around with the President of this country as his Job Czar then I think you need to be setting an example.

Well, remember he's not the job czar. He's the chairman of an advisory board. Perhaps he can advise Obama why companies like his decided to move more operations overseas, and what measures would have enticed the company to not do such a thing.

As far as the soliciting for money then laying off workers, I still don't see how that's unethical, unless there was some sort of understanding that workers from one part of the company's operation could not be laid off due to the money.

Take it down to a smaller scale. Say a company lobbies for a tax break, gets it, then lays off a worker the next day. Is that unethical?

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:15 PM
I agree, it isn't unethical. However, the POTUS looks foolish once again for hand picking a man to advise him on bringing more jobs to American citizens. Once more, President Obama chooses the wrong person to represent his best interests. This is a theme he had had haunt him since before the election.

It is very unethical. Good business decision? Perhaps. Ethical? Not in the slightest.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:15 PM
Well, remember he's not the job czar. He's the chairman of an advisory board. Perhaps he can advise Obama why companies like his decided to move more operations overseas, and what measures would have enticed the company to not do such a thing.

As far as the soliciting for money then laying off workers, I still don't see how that's unethical, unless there was some sort of understanding that workers from one part of the company's operation could not be laid off due to the money.

Take it down to a smaller scale. Say a company lobbies for a tax break, gets it, then lays off a worker the next day. Is that unethical?

More than likely, yes. Depending on the reason for the layoffs.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:16 PM
Jenson71,

You can't be serious. To put it in terms you can understand, they stole the money from taxpayers, because it didn't benefit the tax payers in the least. In fact, IT COST US JOBS AND PAID THEM HANDSOMELY. Add to the fact, that they didn't hardly pay squat to the coffers and there should be criminal indictments made. THEY STOLE.

GE did not steal money from the government.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:19 PM
I agree, it isn't unethical. However, the POTUS looks foolish once again for hand picking a man to advise him on bringing more jobs to American citizens. Once more, President Obama chooses the wrong person to represent his best interests. This is a theme he had had haunt him since before the election.

Who better to know about keeping and creating jobs in America than a CEO whose company has recently going through that very same line of decision making?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:20 PM
More than likely, yes. Depending on the reason for the layoffs.

Aren't both about cost-savings? It's not like they're completely contradictory here.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 10:21 PM
GE did not steal money from the government.

Not at gun point, but the good 'ol boy network has rigged things in favor of the major-corpo-fascists to exploit the system. The federal government is basically Wall Street and Fortune 500 companies making laws to benefit themselves. If you really think they are serving the greater good of the average American, think again.

Bewbies
07-27-2011, 10:23 PM
It would only be looked poorly upon if Immelt was advising President Bush.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 10:24 PM
Who better to know about keeping and creating jobs in America than a CEO whose company has recently going through that very same line of decision making?

Maybe one who had made tough decisions and KEPT jobs here?

It was a poor decision by the POTUS, again.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:25 PM
Jenson, perhaps you will understand where I am coming from after I explain to you that, strictly in my opinion, there is an unwritten obligation between business and community, state and country.

Business should do what is best for their communities, workers, state, etc. It rewards them in the end several times over. Howeever in the modern day, corporate environment we chase this thing called profit 3 months at a time. Always out for the quickest way to profit the most today without any foresight or care of what tomorrow may bring.

Thus we are in the situation we are in. Capital is fleeing this country in droves. You can't hardly buy anything from anywhere anymore that wasn't made in some other country. Meanwhile, executives are raking it in, some shareholders are making a profit here and there and the unemployment rate is rising.

Then, after all that, when companies get in trouble, the Fed Gov hands over billions and billions of tax $'s to some of these companies.

Then you get people who on one hand bitch that GE paid 0 in taxes and on the other condone the offshoring of jobs.

It was our country that made it possible for companies like GE to be a success in the first place. It was our citizens, workers and consumers that made it possible for them to succeed. If a company wants to expand globally then more power to them. But when you start whacking jobs here to create jobs overseas I have an issue.

And in the case of GE, just look at their stock. It's been dead money for the most part for the shareholders. So in the end all you end up with is a few rich executives, disgruntled shareholders and a bunch of laid off workers.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 10:27 PM
GE did not steal money from the government.

No, they didn't. They spent millions of dollars over the course of years to get special dispensation, tax laws on their favor, and purchase a seat on the Czar bar.

Thank goodness President Obama is stopping all those special interests lobbyists. "irony, table for one!"

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:28 PM
Who better to know about keeping and creating jobs in America than a CEO whose company has recently going through that very same line of decision making?

Apparently not Immelt. GE's stock has been in an 11 year down trend.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:29 PM
GE did not steal money from the government.

You're right. They stole it from the tax payer.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:30 PM
Aren't both about cost-savings? It's not like they're completely contradictory here.

Cost savings at what expense? You can always cut off your nose to spite your face, I suppose.

You do realize that every time a person loses their job a consumer is taken out of the consumer pool, right? While a few lay offs here and there have minimal impact, when you see layoffs like we have seen then you get the economic conditions we are in. Laying off a worker may save you money today but it will cost you and several other businesses money in the long run.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:32 PM
Not at gun point, but the good 'ol boy network has rigged things in favor of the major-corpo-fascists to exploit the system. The federal government is basically Wall Street and Fortune 500 companies making laws to benefit themselves. If you really think they are serving the greater good of the average American, think again.

I'm not under the illusion that Wall Street or GE has the first and foremost duty to serve the greater good and the average American. It'd be nice, sure, but it's not going to happen.

Still, that doesn't mean they stole money or bribed money from the government, which is what you accused them of doing.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:33 PM
Maybe one who had made tough decisions and KEPT jobs here?

It was a poor decision by the POTUS, again.

Got any names? Maybe they didn't want to do it.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:36 PM
I'm not under the illusion that Wall Street or GE has the first and foremost duty to serve the greater good and the average American. It'd be nice, sure, but it's not going to happen.

Still, that doesn't mean they stole money or bribed money from the government, which is what you accused them of doing.

Then why didn't they go to the Chinese and Indian governments for their bailout instead of ours?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:38 PM
Jenson, perhaps you will understand where I am coming from after I explain to you that, strictly in my opinion, there is an unwritten obligation between business and community, state and country.

Business should do what is best for their communities, workers, state, etc.

Businesses exist to create wealth, first and foremost. One idea, which gives an ethical argument for capitalism, is that wealth eventually does help communities, workers, state.

But you're sounding a little idealistic.

It rewards them in the end several times over. Howeever in the modern day, corporate environment we chase this thing called profit 3 months at a time. Always out for the quickest way to profit the most today without any foresight or care of what tomorrow may bring.

I disagree that this is some modern day thing.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:41 PM
No, they didn't. They spent millions of dollars over the course of years to get special dispensation, tax laws on their favor, and purchase a seat on the Czar bar.

Thank goodness President Obama is stopping all those special interests lobbyists. "irony, table for one!"

Any good business that can afford it is going to buy legal counsel to best help their business succeed. I don't think we can fault them for that.

But purchasing a seat on the 'czar bar' sounds like some sort of bribery. Is that what happened in this case?

Like I mentioned earlier, this move was seen as a nod to the business community. I suppose instead of hiring a Republican CEO to be an adviser for a job counsel, he could have installed a former union leader or teacher. I'm sure all the conservatives would be glad with that.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 10:41 PM
I'm not under the illusion that Wall Street or GE has the first and foremost duty to serve the greater good and the average American. It'd be nice, sure, but it's not going to happen.

Still, that doesn't mean they stole money or bribed money from the government, which is what you accused them of doing. You're missing the point, as usual. They FLEECED the TAXPAYER of MILLIONS and Millions of dollars to help stimulate the economy of the USA. Shipping jobs overseas, doesn't benefit the USA. It's pretty black and white.

When I say they stole, keep it in context. Again, I said the system is RIGGED in the mega-corporations favors and so they can legally fleece Americans of their hard-earned money. That's stealing in my book and reeks of tyranny.

Do you honestly believe Americans want their money going to pay for some corporation's coffers? How does that benefit Americans in the least? If it doesn't(and it doesn't) help Americans than spending tax dollars on it, is nothing more than stealing from the American Taxpayer. You know it, I know it, and you better damn well know, they know it, too. It's sickening anyone could even justify it, let alone take it as their own benefit.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:42 PM
Apparently not Immelt. GE's stock has been in an 11 year down trend.

Well apparently the people who have the most financial stake with him as CEO still mostly approve of him.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:44 PM
Then why didn't they go to the Chinese and Indian governments for their bailout instead of ours?

Probably because their financial institutions operate in America under American law.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:46 PM
Businesses exist to create wealth, first and foremost. One idea, which gives an ethical argument for capitalism, is that wealth eventually does help communities, workers, state.

But you're sounding a little idealistic.



I disagree that this is some modern day thing.

First off I may be idealistic. But that's how I was raised. You stay loyal to yours.

Secondly yes, the chase for the quarterly profit has taken on a whole new concept since the mid-90's. There was a time when people would not dump a stock because it missed it's quarterly estimate by .01 or .02. Companies did not go into full fire fighting mode because some Wall St. analysts guess on their earnings was a little off one quarter. These days you see companies making rash decisions because of Wall St. And that is because Wall St. has become a "pay me now" game instead of an investment game. Daytraders and active trading by hedge funds have changed the game. If a company misses their estimate by so much as a .01 the stock gets hammered. If they meet or even beat their estimate but don't pay a rosey picture for the next quarter their stock gets hammered.

I have worked in the corporate environment for a long time. I saw first hand how ever quarter drove mass change that in the long run hurt the company and thus the shareholders and workers.

No one wants to invest anymore. They want to trade. They want the quick profit. They want to maximize profit at any cost. And if people haven't learned yet, some have, some haven't, that turns out to be nothing but short term profit and in 2 or 3 years they are hurting.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:46 PM
Probably because their financial institutions operate in America under American law.

Thus my entire point.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 10:47 PM
Got any names? Maybe they didn't want to do it.

sure, Todd Burrowes comes to mind. the CEO of longhorn steakhouse and executive advisor to Darden (the largest casual dining business in the world). Todd is expanding exponentially while most restaurants are struggling. He is doing so at a rate that will not bankrupt the company as Chili's did a few years ago. He is opening operations overseas but with American taxpayers and American employees. Those that can't or won't use Americans, such as Dubai, will be trained by Americans and party franchise fees to American based Corporations like Darden and MBM.

You are making apologies and excuses for a man who won't even admit he is wrong.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:47 PM
Well apparently the people who have the most financial stake with him as CEO still mostly approve of him.

Actually that is not true at all. Do not confuse the shareholders with the board of directors. It is commonplace anymore for one to be against the other.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:49 PM
You're missing the point, as usual. They FLEECED the TAXPAYER of MILLIONS and Millions of dollars to help stimulate the economy of the USA. Shipping jobs overseas, doesn't benefit the USA. It's pretty black and white.

When I say they stole, keep it in context. Again, I said the system is RIGGED in the mega-corporations favors and so they can legally fleece Americans of their hard-earned money. That's stealing in my book and reeks of tyranny.

Do you honestly believe Americans want their money going to pay for some corporation's coffers? How does that benefit Americans in the least? If it doesn't(and it doesn't) help Americans than spending tax dollars on it, is nothing more than stealing from the American Taxpayer. You know it, I know it, and you better damn well know, they know it, too. It's sickening anyone could even justify it, let alone take it as their own benefit.

Fleecing implies some sort of fraud, but I don't think there's an indication of fraud going on here.

Again, the bailouts went to GE's financial institutions, not their X-Ray industry. It's a different thing. You guys could have a point if Americans bailed out the X-Ray company, but then it all went overseas. That's not what happened here. The financial institutions that were bailed out are still here, operating, and paying off their bailout over time.

When you put the bailout in those terms, it's not really telling the truth about the situation. It's just propagandizing it.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 10:49 PM
Any good business that can afford it is going to buy legal counsel to best help their business succeed. I don't think we can fault them for that.

But purchasing a seat on the 'czar bar' sounds like some sort of bribery. Is that what happened in this case?

Like I mentioned earlier, this move was seen as a nod to the business community. I suppose instead of hiring a Republican CEO to be an adviser for a job counsel, he could have installed a former union leader or teacher. I'm sure all the conservatives would be glad with that.

Perhaps a SUCCESSFUL republican ceo would have been a wiser choice?

KCBOSS1
07-27-2011, 10:51 PM
Obama = USA Islamic saboteur

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:51 PM
Thus my entire point.

The institutions that are still operating in America? Okay, then.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:54 PM
First off I may be idealistic. But that's how I was raised. You stay loyal to yours.

Secondly yes, the chase for the quarterly profit has taken on a whole new concept since the mid-90's. There was a time when people would not dump a stock because it missed it's quarterly estimate by .01 or .02. Companies did not go into full fire fighting mode because some Wall St. analysts guess on their earnings was a little off one quarter. These days you see companies making rash decisions because of Wall St. And that is because Wall St. has become a "pay me now" game instead of an investment game. Daytraders and active trading by hedge funds have changed the game. If a company misses their estimate by so much as a .01 the stock gets hammered. If they meet or even beat their estimate but don't pay a rosey picture for the next quarter their stock gets hammered.

I have worked in the corporate environment for a long time. I saw first hand how ever quarter drove mass change that in the long run hurt the company and thus the shareholders and workers.

No one wants to invest anymore. They want to trade. They want the quick profit. They want to maximize profit at any cost. And if people haven't learned yet, some have, some haven't, that turns out to be nothing but short term profit and in 2 or 3 years they are hurting.

I thought you were talking about how businesses used to supposedly care more about their communities than their profit, not the whole 'short term profit vs. long term investment' debate.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:56 PM
sure, Todd Burrowes comes to mind. the CEO of longhorn steakhouse and executive advisor to Darden (the largest casual dining business in the world). Todd is expanding exponentially while most restaurants are struggling. He is doing so at a rate that will not bankrupt the company as Chili's did a few years ago. He is opening operations overseas but with American taxpayers and American employees. Those that can't or won't use Americans, such as Dubai, will be trained by Americans and party franchise fees to American based Corporations like Darden and MBM.

You are making apologies and excuses for a man who won't even admit he is wrong.

GE is a much bigger company that is involved in multiple industries, though. Maybe he was asked?

Here's the list of advisers that serve with Immelt. Perhaps one will meet your approval: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council/members/immelt

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:56 PM
Fleecing implies some sort of fraud, but I don't think there's an indication of fraud going on here.

Again, the bailouts went to GE's financial institutions, not their X-Ray industry. It's a different thing. You guys could have a point if Americans bailed out the X-Ray company, but then it all went overseas. That's not what happened here. The financial institutions that were bailed out are still here, operating, and paying off their bailout over time.

When you put the bailout in those terms, it's not really telling the truth about the situation. It's just propagandizing it.

You don't think there was fraud involved in the bailouts? LMAO

Just an example, Goldman Sachs sold a bunch of bad investments to their customers, then got AIG to insure those bad assets. The whole time they were betting against those assets. When those assets went bad AIG was stuck holding the bill. When AIG couldn't pay the Treasury stepped in and we got TARP. Goldman was payed 100 cents on the $.

It was a fucking money scam out the ass. Goldman knew AIG would not be able to afford to insure those assets that THEY talked AIG into insuring. So when the bubble burst WE paid that bill to Goldman. All the while Goldman was betting against those assets and making tons of $'s along the way.

They shafted the system and got the tax payer to pay them.

Oh, and those "still existing" institutions who needed our money so badly? They were and are handing out record bonuses to their execs. But they needed our money.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:58 PM
Actually that is not true at all. Do not confuse the shareholders with the board of directors. It is commonplace anymore for one to be against the other.

I'm pretty sure that both groups have major financial stakes in the CEO. And the board of directors are usually huge shareholders in the company.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 10:59 PM
I thought you were talking about how businesses used to supposedly care more about their communities than their profit, not the whole 'short term profit vs. long term investment' debate.

They did used too. It's all part and parcel. Now the chase for the quick profit has made that a thing of the past. CEO's will ship 1000's of jobs overseas and not lose a wink of sleep about it.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 10:59 PM
Perhaps a SUCCESSFUL republican ceo would have been a wiser choice?

Your threshold of success is way too high for reality.

"Jeffrey R. Immelt is the ninth Chairman and CEO of GE, a post he has held since September 7, 2001. Mr. Immelt has held several global leadership positions since coming to GE in 1982, including roles in GE's Plastics, Appliance, and Medical businesses. In 1989 he became an officer of GE and joined the GE Capital Board in 1997. A couple years later, in 2000, Mr. Immelt was appointed president and chief executive officer. Mr. Immelt has been named one of the "World's Best CEOs" three times by Barron's, and since he began serving as chief executive officer, GE has been named "America's Most Admired Company" in a poll conducted by Fortune magazine and one of "The World's Most Respected Companies" in polls by Barron's and the Financial Times. Mr. Immelt is also a member of The Business Council. Mr. Immelt earned a B.A. degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1982."

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:01 PM
I'm pretty sure that both groups have major financial stakes in the CEO. And the board of directors are usually huge shareholders in the company.

You're not seeing the forrest through the trees. Boards are a boys club. They don't have to do what the shareholders want. And while this guy may not make so much money by sitting on that guy's board, that guy happens to sit on this guy's board so he gets his back scratched in return.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:01 PM
You don't think there was fraud involved in the bailouts? LMAO

Just an example, Goldman Sachs sold a bunch of bad investments to their customers, then got AIG to insure those bad assets. The whole time they were betting against those assets. When those assets went bad AIG was stuck holding the bill. When AIG couldn't pay the Treasury stepped in and we got TARP. Goldman was payed 100 cents on the $.

It was a ****ing money scam out the ass. Goldman knew AIG would not be able to afford to insure those assets that THEY talked AIG into insuring. So when the bubble burst WE paid that bill to Goldman. All the while Goldman was betting against those assets and making tons of $'s along the way.

They shafted the system and got the tax payer to pay them.

Oh, and those "still existing" institutions who needed our money so badly? They were and are handing out record bonuses to their execs. But they needed our money.

You're talking about the industry before the bailouts. I'm talking about the bailout money given to GE's financial branches.

Was fraud involved in giving bailout money to GE?

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:02 PM
Fleecing implies some sort of fraud, but I don't think there's an indication of fraud going on here.

Again, the bailouts went to GE's financial institutions, not their X-Ray industry. It's a different thing. You guys could have a point if Americans bailed out the X-Ray company, but then it all went overseas. That's not what happened here. The financial institutions that were bailed out are still here, operating, and paying off their bailout over time.

When you put the bailout in those terms, it's not really telling the truth about the situation. It's just propagandizing it.

Do you not understand that politicans are mainly elected by corporation's contributions? Lobbying has become a full-time job and those with the most money make the rules, regardless of the different divisions within a company.

Do you actually believe they make the rules(laws) to get fucked over? Greed rules them and they'll walk over anybody in their way. They are bought and paid for.

Congress is basically Wall Street's and the Fortune 500's ticket to exploiting the system. Top 1% doesn't pay squat, yet have the most loopholes. Why is that?

Because they make the rules(laws) and have those that they helped get elected enforce their wishes.

Ever heard the saying "He with the most gold, makes the rules?" It's very pertinent to the discussion.

The system has been exploited to the point, that we are no longer Congress' main concern. Those that butter their bread is who they serve.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:02 PM
Your threshold of success is way too high for reality.

"Jeffrey R. Immelt is the ninth Chairman and CEO of GE, a post he has held since September 7, 2001. Mr. Immelt has held several global leadership positions since coming to GE in 1982, including roles in GE's Plastics, Appliance, and Medical businesses. In 1989 he became an officer of GE and joined the GE Capital Board in 1997. A couple years later, in 2000, Mr. Immelt was appointed president and chief executive officer. Mr. Immelt has been named one of the "World's Best CEOs" three times by Barron's, and since he began serving as chief executive officer, GE has been named "America's Most Admired Company" in a poll conducted by Fortune magazine and one of "The World's Most Respected Companies" in polls by Barron's and the Financial Times. Mr. Immelt is also a member of The Business Council. Mr. Immelt earned a B.A. degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1982."

GE's stock in Sept of 01? High 30's. GE's stock today? $18.

I'm sure the shareholders are great admirerers.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:03 PM
They did used too. It's all part and parcel. Now the chase for the quick profit has made that a thing of the past. CEO's will ship 1000's of jobs overseas and not lose a wink of sleep about it.

Again, I don't think the CEO is obligated to keep jobs in America at the expense of the company's profits. The only reason that wasn't more common in the good old days is only because we are a more globalized world today.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:07 PM
Do you not understand that politicans are mainly elected by corporation's contributions? Lobbying has become a full-time job and those with the most money make the rules, regardless of the different divisions within a company.

Do you actually believe they make the rules(laws) to get ****ed over? Greed rules them and they'll walk over anybody in their way. They are bought and paid for.

Congress is basically Wall Street's and the Fortune 500's ticket to exploiting the system. Top 1% doesn't pay squat, yet have the most loopholes. Why is that?

Because they make the rules(laws) and have those that they helped get elected enforce their wishes.

Ever heard the saying "He with the most gold, makes the rules?"

I hope you don't think this is a modern day issue. Henry Adam's novel Democracy written in the 1870s railed on the same issue.

What's your solution? We're still a nation where almost any person can run and vote and speak about anything.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:08 PM
GE is a much bigger company that is involved in multiple industries, though. Maybe he was ]
I didn't realize size was the major decision maker. if that is your only fault I would hazard to say your reasoning is suspect. Darden has approximately 2500 restaurants nationwide with about 250,000 employees. I would venture to say they are a major corporation.

So far all I have heard is Immelt was available and a Ceo of a company that is big. He is successful at keeping his company afloat because he lobbies to change laws and send jobs overseas. Then the POTUS is so impressed that he hires this lobbyist extraordinaire against his campaign promise to get the lobbyists out of washington. You hasn't not made a decent case.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:08 PM
You're not seeing the forrest through the trees. Boards are a boys club. They don't have to do what the shareholders want. And while this guy may not make so much money by sitting on that guy's board, that guy happens to sit on this guy's board so he gets his back scratched in return.

Do the people who decide who the CEO is have a lot of financial stake in him?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:09 PM
GE's stock in Sept of 01? High 30's. GE's stock today? $18.

I'm sure the shareholders are great admirerers.

Well, there was a pretty big Recession in there somewhere.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:11 PM
You're talking about the industry before the bailouts. I'm talking about the bailout money given to GE's financial branches.

Was fraud involved in giving bailout money to GE?

It was a back scratch. They did not fall under the other regulations all the other banks had to follow. They lobbied for the money, got the restrictions of TARP loosened and took $340 bil.

You're going to sit there and really think that one of the largets corporations in the world needed a measley $340 bil?

Easy 6
07-27-2011, 11:11 PM
State Capitalism > Third Way Socialism

So, in laymans terms... unbridled, soulless capitalim, isnt any better than Communism or any other dirty word?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:11 PM
I didn't realize size was the major decision maker. if that is your only fault I would hazard to say your reasoning is suspect. Darden has approximately 2500 restaurants nationwide with about 250,000 employees. I would venture to say they are a major corporation.

So far all I have heard is Immelt was available and a Ceo of a company that is big. He is successful at keeping his company afloat because he lobbies to change laws and send jobs overseas. Then the POTUS is so impressed that he hires this lobbyist extraordinaire against his campaign promise to get the lobbyists out of washington. You hasn't not made a decent case.

I don't need to make a decent case for him. I'm sure your guy is excellent, too. But maybe Immelt had a great interview or was highly recommended by someone close to Obama.

It's silly to say that Immelt is not qualified to be an adviser here.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:11 PM
Your threshold of success is way too high for reality.

"Jeffrey R. Immelt is the ninth Chairman and CEO of GE, a post he has held since September 7, 2001. Mr. Immelt has held several global leadership positions since coming to GE in 1982, including roles in GE's Plastics, Appliance, and Medical businesses. In 1989 he became an officer of GE and joined the GE Capital Board in 1997. A couple years later, in 2000, Mr. Immelt was appointed president and chief executive officer. Mr. Immelt has been named one of the "World's Best CEOs" three times by Barron's, and since he began serving as chief executive officer, GE has been named "America's Most Admired Company" in a poll conducted by Fortune magazine and one of "The World's Most Respected Companies" in polls by Barron's and the Financial Times. Mr. Immelt is also a member of The Business Council. Mr. Immelt earned a B.A. degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1982."

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant a successful businessman who runs a successful company without government intervention or losing employees to overseas workers. Not someone who bought their name in a Who's Who listing.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:12 PM
Well, there was a pretty big Recession in there somewhere.

Yeah and most of the companies have come back.

McDonald's stock in Sept of 01? $30ish

McDonald's stock today? $87

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:13 PM
Well, there was a pretty big Recession in there somewhere.

And during that recession some companies were successful without altering laws or receiving government welfare.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:14 PM
Do the people who decide who the CEO is have a lot of financial stake in him?

Yes but not as you are proposing. They have the interest not so much in the stock of the CEO's company but in the fact that the CEO sits on the board of the OTHER CEO's company. It's a boys club. That is why there are lawsuits trying to get a shareholder's rights bill passed so that boards have to actually listen to the shareholders.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:16 PM
I don't need to make a decent case for him. I'm sure your guy is excellent, too. But maybe Immelt had a great interview or was highly recommended by someone close to Obama.

It's silly to say that Immelt is not qualified to be an adviser here.

Or maybe he made sure Obama would get something out of it if Obama favored him personally as well as professionaly? MSNBC ring a bell? The Obama Cheerleading Network?

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:16 PM
I hope you don't think this is a modern day issue. Henry Adam's novel Democracy written in the 1870s railed on the same issue.

What's your solution? We're still a nation where almost any person can run and vote and speak about anything.

No. I don't think it's a modern day issue and it goes back WAY BEFORE 1870. That's a discussion for another date.

Since you asked, here's what I would like to see...

. Slash the defense department in half. Allow for salaries and maintenance of weaponry. No new research and development for two full years. We are already so far ahead of the curve, 700 plus days won't mean squat.

2. Call for all politicians to make the sacrifice. No more free pensions. You get paid for your time in office, not anytime after.
No more free insurance. They will pay taxes from this day forward in my plan and also actually separate those that stand for the republic and those that don't.

3. Tax American companies that have a physical address here. No more loopholes for exploiting third-world countries of their laborers and being allowed to stay without paying their share. Realize companies that exploit the system couldn't be more unpatriotic.

4. Disband and/or shrink several current federal agencies. Freddie and Fannie go bye-bye. Dept. of Education gets all but dissolved. Many more tumble. TSA, your days are numbered. The airlines work within guidelines, but have their own security. Tax dollars for securing other people's businesses is a thing of the past.

5. Decriminalize drugs and tax it big.

6. Sell some assets to the private sector. Not all, but some.

7. End the Federal Reserve. American tax dollars should be a treasury issue, not a private entity.

8. Hire the IRS employees to audit how Congress spends our money. Yeah, finally a reason for the IRS to exist and no more $90 hammers.

9. Restructure policies to be productive and serve the greater good. If an agency is LOSING money, they need to be seriously scrutinized and most likely dissolved.

10. End the wars. Money shouldn't be collected for government to KILL others. Have we become so de-sensitized that we don't even recognize death of our fellow man?

11. Wake the department of justice up. Where are they? They actually are supposed to be protecting us from this criminal hi-jacking.

12. Invoke individual's rights again. The Bill of Rights need to be adhered to-if you choose not, your opinion on those matters, seize to exist.

13. No property taxes. How can you truly OWN property if you've paid in full and still owe taxes every year? That's slavery. Those that have their ducks in a row will spend more money, due to their needs being met and having sound security of a place to call home, no matter the circumstance.

14. Recognize our rights are given from a higher power and no government has the final say in our well-being.

15. Be accountable for your own actions. Quit depending on others to put your tax dollars to the use of the way you see fit. YOU, have your best interest in mind, not a group of enforcers of tax code.

16. Separate media from government.

That's my start. What say you?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:17 PM
I don't need to make a decent case for him. I'm sure your guy is excellent, too. But maybe Immelt had a great interview or was highly recommended by someone close to Obama.

Iit's silly to say that Immelt is not qualified to be an adviser here.

I never stated he was not qualified. I stated he was a poor choice because of his affiliation with lobbyists and is not one of the most successful businessmen during the last several years. If this was the best person the President could find for the job, he should be ashamed.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:20 PM
It was a back scratch. They did not fall under the other regulations all the other banks had to follow. They lobbied for the money, got the restrictions of TARP loosened and took $340 bil.

You're going to sit there and really think that one of the largets corporations in the world needed a measley $340 bil?

I don't think they got $340 billion. And that's not measly, even to one of the largest corporations in the world.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:21 PM
I'd also add, decrease aid to other countries in most cases, unless it's a huminatarian issue.

petegz28
07-27-2011, 11:23 PM
I don't think they got $340 billion. And that's not measly, even to one of the largest corporations in the world.

You're right. They got $140 bil. That's my bad.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:26 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant a successful businessman who runs a successful company without government intervention or losing employees to overseas workers. Not someone who bought their name in a Who's Who listing.

Bought name in a Who's Who listing? Listen, I have no reason to think that Immelt is not qualified to be an adviser for to the president about jobs. Honestly, I suspect your dislike of him as more to do with who chose him rather than his ideas and advice he can offer to the president, which I doubt you have much information about.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:28 PM
Yeah and most of the companies have come back.

McDonald's stock in Sept of 01? $30ish

McDonald's stock today? $87

Good Lord. The recession affected different industries differently. Is Immelt the reason GE's stock is lower today than it was in 2001?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:32 PM
Yes but not as you are proposing. They have the interest not so much in the stock of the CEO's company but in the fact that the CEO sits on the board of the OTHER CEO's company. It's a boys club. That is why there are lawsuits trying to get a shareholder's rights bill passed so that boards have to actually listen to the shareholders.

My understanding was that the Board of Directors a lot of financial stake in the CEO.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:34 PM
Good Lord. The recession affected different industries differently. Is Immelt the reason GE's stock is lower today than it was in 2001?Yeah paying them $140 BILLION brought the recession to it's knees. :rolleyes:

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:35 PM
Or maybe he made sure Obama would get something out of it if Obama favored him personally as well as professionaly? MSNBC ring a bell? The Obama Cheerleading Network?

Immelt is a Republican, correct?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:37 PM
No. I don't think it's a modern day issue and it goes back WAY BEFORE 1870. That's a discussion for another date.

Since you asked, here's what I would like to see...

I didn't ask for Glenn Beck's campaign platform, I asked how you would ensure that Wall St. and corporations have no more say in government affairs than homeless people, Wal-Mart greeters and hair stylists.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:38 PM
Bought name in a Who's Who listing? Listen, I have no reason to think that Immelt is not qualified to be an adviser for to the president about jobs. Honestly, I suspect your dislike of him as more to do with who chose him rather than his ideas and advice he can offer to the president, which I doubt you have much information about.

Funny, I got the strongest impression that your favor to him isn't he himself but rather who chose him.

Odd, isn't it?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:38 PM
I never stated he was not qualified. I stated he was a poor choice because of his affiliation with lobbyists and is not one of the most successful businessmen during the last several years. If this was the best person the President could find for the job, he should be ashamed.

Do you have any idea what kind of advice, proposals, documents he and the other members have given to Obama thus far?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:39 PM
Do you have any idea what kind of advice, proposals, documents he and the other members have given to Obama thus far?

Unless you do, the point is moot, isn't it?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:39 PM
I'd also add, decrease aid to other countries in most cases, unless it's a huminatarian issue.

Really? I think we should increase our aid to other countries.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:40 PM
You're right. They got $140 bil. That's my bad.

And that's still a lot of money.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:40 PM
I didn't ask for Glenn Beck's campaign platform, I asked how you would ensure that Wall St. and corporations have no more say in government affairs than homeless people, Wal-Mart greeters and hair stylists.

Term limits.

Contribution limits.

No contributions from corporations.

That would be a good start.

BTW, that's MY Ideas for a better America. Glenn Beck doesn't have jack squat to do with it.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:41 PM
Funny, I got the strongest impression that your favor to him isn't he himself but rather who chose him.

Odd, isn't it?

You have created a little battle in your mind. I'm not in favor of him. My position is that 1) he is qualified for the job and 2) he has not done anything unethical

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:42 PM
Unless you do, the point is moot, isn't it?

Thanks, I suspected you were pulling things out of your ass. I have a crusading book to recommend to you when I get the chance and find the title.

EDIT -- this post to KCWolfman was undeserved and rude, and I apologize for it.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:43 PM
Really? I think we should increase our aid to other countries.

The country is $17 TRILLON IN DEBT and you think we should pay more foreign aid? That's insanity. Do you even know what DEBT MEANS?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:44 PM
Term limits.

Contribution limits.

No contributions from corporations.

That would be a good start.

BTW, that's MY Ideas for a better America. Glenn Beck doesn't have jack squat to do with it.

Well, didn't the legislature pass a big law a few years ago trying to curb back corporate contributions in elections?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:45 PM
The country is $17 TRILLON IN DEBT and you think we should pay more foreign aid? That's insanity. Do you even know what DEBT MEANS?

Absolutely. I think we should nearly double our foreign development aid.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:48 PM
Absolutely. I think we should nearly double our foreign development aid.ROFL.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:50 PM
ROFL.

It's a hard sell in these days. It's not going to happen. It would be great for us in the long term if we did, but it's political suicide.

How much of a % of our budget do you think is spent on foreign development?

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 11:52 PM
It's a hard sell in these days. It's not going to happen. It would be great for us in the long term if we did, but it's political suicide.We're already shipping them our jobs, how much more do they need?

Add the debt in the equation and we need to cut foreign aid, by leaps and bounds.

It's political suicide because it's insane in the membrane.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 11:54 PM
We're already shipping them our jobs, how much more do they need?

Add the debt in the equation and we need to cut foreign aid, by leaps and bounds.

It's political suicide because it's insane in the membrane.

Did you catch my question?

It's political suicide because 1) the culture is (true: for good reason) about cutting now and 2) it's not beneficial in the immediate future

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 11:58 PM
Thanks, I suspected you were pulling things out of your ass. I have a crusading book to recommend to you when I get the chance and find the title.

Jenson, I honestly thought you were trying a civil discourse on this thread. When you ran out of apologies and excuses you choose to try and belittle the messenger since you can't the message.

Good luck and God bless you. Your attitude is honestly not worth my time or worth bringing me down. Whatever it is that compels you to be an unruly trashy human I certainly hope is eventually removed from your life.

BigChiefFan
07-28-2011, 12:04 AM
Did you catch my question?

It's political suicide because 1) the culture is (true: for good reason) about cutting now and 2) it's not beneficial in the immediate future

It's less than 1% of the budget, but that's deceiving because we spend so much in total. I'd venture to say we probably spend in the neighborhood of at least $30 BILLION in foreign aid, EVERY YEAR. The majority of it only going to a hand full of countries. I would guess Israel is probably the country that benefits the most. $30 BILLION. That's hard to justify when they are talks of slashing Americans benefits, that ACTUALLY PAID into the system.

Jenson71
07-28-2011, 12:14 AM
Jenson, I honestly thought you were trying a civil discourse on this thread. When you ran out of apologies and excuses you choose to try and belittle the messenger since you can't the message.

Good luck and God bless you. Your attitude is honestly not worth my time or worth bringing me down. Whatever it is that compels you to be an unruly trashy human I certainly hope is eventually removed from your life.

Okay, you are right here and right for calling me out on it. I apologize for saying that. My point is just that the criticism towards this guy in this thread has been pretty lame and unconvincing.

I edited the original post.

Jenson71
07-28-2011, 12:19 AM
It's less than 1% of the budget, but that's deceiving because we spend so much in total. I'd venture to say we probably spend in the neighborhood of at least $30 BILLION in foreign aid, EVERY YEAR. The majority of it only going to a hand full of countries. I would guess Israel is probably the country that benefits the most. $30 BILLION. That's hard to justify when they are talks of slashing Americans benefits, that ACTUALLY PAID into the system.

I understand, but in my opinion, there is a huge opportunity out there for increased wealth by developing other countries (not just wealth in those countries, but wealth Americans benefit from right here at home). And it comes with the side benefit of helping in great ways to curb human poverty. And it helps protect us and others like us from possible terrorist growths.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:18 AM
Good Lord. The recession affected different industries differently. Is Immelt the reason GE's stock is lower today than it was in 2001?

Is he the man in charge?

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:19 AM
Immelt is a Republican, correct?

Immelt is whatever he needs to be to get whatever he wants.

petegz28
07-28-2011, 08:20 AM
My understanding was that the Board of Directors a lot of financial stake in the CEO.

In theory yes. In reality, meh not so much.

LOCOChief
07-28-2011, 09:36 AM
I don't see, from that article or this news, that this guy nor Obama did anything unethical or wrong or have some sort of conflict of interest that can't continue.



Can't see the problem huh?

Chief Henry
07-28-2011, 10:50 AM
GE's stock in Sept of 01? High 30's. GE's stock today? $18.

I'm sure the shareholders are great admirerers.




Jeffys "hope and change" is working really well for the GE shareholders.
ABout like the GM bond holders.