Can anybody here defend Obama's choice of Immelt

[edhopper]

Because to me, it clearly shows, if we didn't recognize it yet, that he chooses the corporations over the workers.

[Brickbat]

1. You are exactly right. I've seen some half-hearted "chess! multi-level!" here and there, but I

think most people here are starting to realize that the cavalry isn't coming.

ETA: I recc'ed your thread, but it seems to have disappeared. Aw.

[hughee99]

10. The multi-level chess is the catch all.

as in "I have no idea why he'd do this, but my blind faith says everything he does must be the right thing". My favorite follow up to that is always, the "Do you think you know more than the president?" defense. It shifts the responsibility from the person who's trying to defend the president without any actual info to the person who's questioning the president.

You're always sure to find an insightful argument from those that employ this defense. :sarcasm:

[Marr]

25. LOL-- I got that one just the other day.

It's such a ridiculous argument.

Person A: "The evidence suggests X".

Person B: "X does not fit with my portrait of the President. Therefore, there are unknown facts that make X untrue".

Person A: "But--"

Person B: "I already debunked your claim! Do imagined facts mean nothing to you?!"

[DCKit]

27. Been seeing a LOT of that here lately.

Some of them have been here for a long time, too. Sinking threads and unreccing their little hearts out, I don't doubt. All very negative (and some very imaginative) people, but violating the spirit, if not the rules.

[dotymed]

166. I know.

It has really gotten bad lately. Seriously, it is how I imagine FR. I am sure that is where most of them come from.

[woo me with science]

174. Bwah!

Summed up perfectly! :rofl:

[tomp]

86. my response: i may not know more but i know better.

and one of the reasons i don't know more is because he won't tell us the things he knows. long live wikileaks!

[yurbud]

162. if he's playing multi level chess, we're the pawns that he sacrifices 99% of the time

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalun D]

78. LOLZ!!!!

[Brickbat]

118. Well said.

:rofl:

[QC]

164. !

[Union Scribe]

173. Apparently it was too "!" for some

:)

[Egnever]

2. .

:eyes: :crazy: :eyes:

[Number23]

179. I know. I, personally, am shocked, shocked to my VERY CORE that DU doesn't approve

of the president's pick for ______ (insert position) because of ______ (insert reason). I mean, who could have predicted such a thing?

[Duer 157099]

3. Have no doubt that many can and will

I'm not one of them, but I'm sure they are here.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. That's how it looks to me...

:shrug:

[Arkana]

5. If you're waiting for everyone who still likes the President to toss him under the proverbial RV

because of a single appointment, you're wasting your time.

See, we don't spend our lives raging over a guy the President appointed to a goddamn advisory committee.

[earthside]

11. All those "single appointment[s]" ...

... add up to an administration whose economic team is composed almost entirely of corporate insiders and banksters.

So, yes, the Immelt appointment matters because along with all the others, it shows where Obama is -- with the banksters.

[northernlights]

23. maybe you could make a list of the appointments we can celebrate

I expect it will be a pretty friggin' short list.

[RufusTFirefly]

70. Van Jones was a tremendous appointment. One of my favorites.

Oh. Wait a minute. Never mind.

[maritimer]

33. Has he brought in any labor leaders or progressives?

No- almost all are bankers, businessmen and investment types.

That says plenty.

Will Obama ask his new "advisor" to return the stimulus money given to GE? 25 million bucks to lay off or reduce US employment by 18,000 workers.

[sabrina 1]

44. If it was just one guy, neither would the rest of us.

[walldude]

45. Which is why we keep getting shitty appointments

but hey, whatever, we need a government that protects business over people. :eyes:

[roguevalley]

51. then you apparently still have your job. the 300K others that he

didn't break a sweat getting rid of probably have an opinion. whoever has his ear has power.

[Arkana]

132. No, actually, I'm unemployed.

Surprised? I mean, I don't have a job, therefore I must RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE, right?

[DeSwiss]

177. No.

- That actually makes it worse.


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -- Abraham Lincoln

[cui bono]

186. Well if you're going to defend him then go right ahead and do it.

You didn't bother to answer the request of appointments we should be happy about. Hm... tough one, eh?

[Kalun D]

79. Terminolgy FAIL

"because of a single appointment"

because of MOST of his appointments

[whathehell]

108. A SINGLE appointment?

LOL, you must be kidding me.:evilgrin:

[liberation]

149. "we don't spend our lives raging over a guy the President appointed to a goddamn advisory committee"

That is true, technically some of you spend your lives raging against people who spend their lives raging over a guy the President appointed to a goddam advisory committee.

[Jakes Progress]

158. Giggle.

You can say that with a straight face? Congratulations.

[Jakes Progress]

159. I notice that you didn't try to defend the appointment, but

rather tried to run the thread off in another direction. You guys are getting good at that. It's easy to push the buttons of frustrated people who actually care about issues.

[gateley]

6. No. I'm disappointed in so many of his appointments. He's got

incredible opportunities to bring in people who can truly make a difference. Sigh.

[grahamhgreen]

7. Thise who get paid to post...

[blm]

8. Quite likely he has no choice. BushInc's been running the show for decades and they ain't giving up

more than a few bones to the left to keep up appearances. GE/NBC has long been a major part of the BFEE and the global fascist agenda.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

22. Google would add much to yours.

[True_Blue]

81. An article from 2005

With Bush's help, GE courts Indian PM, nuke sector

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Just over an hour after the White House's surprise pledge to help India develop its civilian nuclear power sector, the head of General Electric, the American company that could benefit most from the policy change, sat down for a celebratory dinner.

The host was President George W. Bush; a few feet away was India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, and his top aides. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, a contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns, had a coveted seat at the president's table.

Bush's announcement on nuclear trade with India -- followed by a formal dinner in the State dining room -- was not just a victory for Singh. For GE, the only U.S.-owned company still in the nuclear business, it marked a possible turning point in a years-long push to re-enter the Indian nuclear power market, which it was forced to leave in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test.

"In the short term, it's really business as usual. ... But if things unfold the way it looks they may, then clearly it is a significant opportunity for us," said Peter Wells, general manager of marketing for GE Energy's nuclear business.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050723-ge-india-nuke.htm

[blm]

142. I really believe there is little ANY President can do....Powerful elite didn't get that way over the

decades by allowing Dem Presidents TOO much room to do the good they'd like.

I wonder how many of us would sacrifice our lives or that of our children and families to bring the powerful elite to full exposition? I doubt I could make that choice now that I am a mother.

[davidwparker]

161. Try FDR and the powerful elite which he fought.

It's a matter of backbone.

"how many of us would sacrifice our lives"

Oh, please.

[blm]

167. I am quite certain that BushInc is far more powerful, malicious, and sophisticated

in its institutional foundation than anything faced by FDR. FDR's opponents didn't control that era's media anywhere near to the degree the fascists control the broadcast and print media of today.

[rfranklin]

184. Actually it's the same family...

they were trying to overturn the election of FDR then and they are trying to overturn the election of Obama.

[blm]

197. Yes...but, they didn't gain near total control over our newsmedia till the 80s and 90s

when their fascist pals were buying up all available media...like GE buying up NBC and making the news dept. contribute to their 'bottom line' by acting as PR dept for the global fascist agenda.

[cui bono]

187. You should post this as it's own thread. Very important info.

Thanks for posting it.

[blm]

206. right....sad how so many still haven't heard of these matters

.

[chill_wind]

9. Heh.

:popcorn:

[Faygo Kid]

13. I wrote a cover article about GE for a magazine about 8 years ago. Extraordinary.

It was not a political magazine, but it was (is) national, with considerable influence. A favorable article, I might add; that was the assignment (GE and innovative practices). Some nice senior execs at GE spoke with me, and I could not have done it without them. But any time I tried to extend credit to them or others, they quickly corrected me: It was all Jeff Immelt. He HAD to get ALL the credit.

That's how it works in corporate America; that's what it's all about. I worked at a large bank 30 years ago, and the role of all the senior executives was to kiss up to the CEO. One executive vice president booked the CEO into a hotel room that was green. The CEO hated green. The executive vice president lost his position jockeying for future leadership.

Anyway, it's a bad choice. This guy has had nothing but kiss-ups for the past decade; he is desperately out of touch (that's charitable) with the problems of average Americans.

But after the appointments of Simpson and Bowles to head the Catfood Commission, we should no longer be surprised at any of the appointments coming out of the Obama Administration.

If he brings Dick Morris in as an adviser, though, I'm through.

[femrap]

42. I read over at

Zero Hedge, I think it was, that under Immelt, GE's stock performance has declined...plus he shipped lots of jobs to China. And GE just sold its avionics division to China.....so there goes more jobs to China....and this dude is going to be the HEAD of the ECONOMIC ADVISORS???????????

Obama says one thing and does another. Just how stupid does he think we are?

He's had 2 years to get the Green Industries moving....nothing. More solar panels are being made in China.

Serfing, USA

[girl gone mad]

46. GE had to get a massive government bailout recently.

They would have gone under like Enron, Worldcom and Bear Stearns, if not for those big government ties they bought over the years. They spent 44 million lobbying last year. That's more than any other corporation, iirc, but it's pocket change when you look at how much government support they've been given.

[femrap]

48. Did they become a

bank? It seemed like every Corporate pig became a bank so to get TARP money.

I remember GE saying that they couldn't get any Money Market money at the time....no liquidity.

I still think we're just kicking the can down the street...eventually the can will hit a wall (like that big one in China...lol).

Just how much can the Fed ease? I think it's a huge transfer of wealth from the middle/working classes to the top 2%...so we're just another 3rd world country?

I got a bad feeling about this year.

[BobbyBoring]

131. ever hear of

GE Financial? One of the biggest rip offs in the game. They issue cards for Lowes, Home depot etc

[TheKentuckian]

181. Only their biggest money maker. Appliances and even Prime contracting are now sidelines.

[kath]

67. Serfing, USA

You've got that right!

[JDPriestly]

195. Obama says one thing and does another.

In fact, the better Obama's speeches are, the worse his actions.

We need a candidate who will challenge Obama. We need to form a grass-roots movement in the Democratic Party that will answer to the rest of us at least some of the time, and not just to the CEOs of the corporations all of the time.

[Enthusiast]

85. I'm already through.

No more sucker here.

[Jamel]

14. Weekly address

This is why he did it.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/22/weekly-address-we-can-out-compete-any-other-nation

[boppers]

52. Wow, the only explanation in the thread, and it's being ignored?

I guess it didn't fit with the conventional pile-on narrative.

[cui bono]

190. As if we're supposed to believe what Obama says any more.

Come on... fool me once shame on me, fool me twice... er... um... we won't get fooled again!

[JDPriestly]

196. The only concrete, real action that Obama talks about there

to create new jobs in the US is increasing China's investment in the US.

I hope you enjoy working for your Chinese new bosses. Think about how you posted this thread as wages in the US are cut down to the levels of the Chinese underclass.

American workers already are the most productive in the world -- when we have jobs. We work longer hours than workers in any other country. We are innovative.

Our problem is not low productivity or unwillingness to work. Our problem is the unfair trade policies of other countries and the extreme nationalism of most people in other countries. (I've lived in enough other countries to know that most people buy their own country's products when they can just because they think their own country produces better things. Americans, unfortunately, don't think that way.)

So, what is Obama doing? Instead of advocating for a trade policy that ends the unfair trade policies of other countries, HE PROMISES TO EXPAND TRADE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.

Of course, he throws out huge numbers -- estimates all of them -- about how many jobs his junkets to other countries will create in the US. Promises. Promises. Free trade combined with wasteful wars have wasted the American economy.

Obama's "explanation" is worse than nothing. If you really think about what he says in that video, boppers, you will see that the plan that Obama has adopted is just more of the same empty promises and lost jobs. It's a department store Christmas tree. Lots of bright lights and pretty wrapping paper, but no presents.

[kath]

68. I clicked on that link, but

then I just couldn't bring myself to click on the arrow to start the video.

Breaks my heart to realize this, but I just can't bear to watch or listen to the guy any more. And I was so happy on Election Night 2008. Sigh.

[cui bono]

188. Same here. n/t

[Enthusiast]

87. Okay. I watched it.

But how can he disregard Immelt's past record of outsourcing. Immelt is a champion, record setting outsourcer. How many plants closed under Emmelt's leadership?

I no longer believe Obama's 'pretty words'. He is not to be trusted. Too many bad choices and terrible appointments that impact the American work force.

[davidwparker]

163. Correct. The effects of outsourcing and free-trade has

been detrimental to this country. Anyone who continues down this path continues destroying this country. Just like we say about tax-breaks to the wealthy. If it worked, we's the booming economy?

I had planned to watch the SOTU on CSPAN. I think I will re-up my Malloy podcast can hear his coverage of it. Obama's voice to me know is like Bush's was: just background noise.

[Urban Prairie]

15. Yet the rightwing still call President Obama Marxist a usurper and socialist, amongst other slanders

Beginning to truly believe that if he switched parties in '12, many on the right would even cast their votes for him, if not be singing their praises of Obama from their rooftops.

[Hydra]

36. It's a mark of how little the the average rightwinger is paying attention

Not unlike Reagan's famous comments about how the Contras were "Freedom fighters."

I find it maddening that the Left thinks Obama is their guy, and the Right thinks that he's a pinko commie. When all of these RW ideas implemented by a Dem come tumbling down, the Left is going to be holding the bag for a generation...and I think, we will deserve to.

After all, we let it happen in our name.

[stillwaiting]

99. The ELECTED "left" in this country is allowing this to happen.

Also, the leadership of the "left" is allowing this to happen.

But, make no mistake, they are allowing this to happen on purpose.

The end result will most likely be as you say as the left is potentially discredited for a generation due to the purposeful actions and in-actions of the "left" that are allowed access to the masses.

Since this is clear, for true leftists to continue to rely on those in power seems a bit naive.

A movement outside of entrenched interests is the only way the left will ever even begin to make an impression on the masses in this country.

[socialist_n_TN]

102. Your last sentence is the only way to salvage..............

ANYTHING with the masses now. We MUST redefine and deliniate the ACTUAL, classic Left from all these people who, whether for purposeful obfuscation or because of relativism, CALL themselves "the left".

Basically, we've got to go with a radical form of socialism, IMO. Or AT LEAST Bernie's version. Eventually people might see the difference.

[Hydra]

106. No, you're right- we have to embrace "radical" socialism

And embrace the hatred that will be the inevitably reaction. Why? Because only by being unabashed in our values are we ever going to get over the era of "compromise."

[socialist_n_TN]

115. Solidarity.

:fistbump: :)

[HowHasItComeToThis]

144. I FEAR THAT THE LEFT IS BEING DISMANTLED

IVIZ http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/highranking-members-military-part-knights-malta-opus-dei-reporter-claims/ AND http://www.newscorpse.com/

[cui bono]

193. Agreed. Dems vs. Repubs is a front, it's a farce, a false fight.

It's a class war going on and it has nothing to do with Dems and Repubs. It has everything to do with working class vs. ruling class. And it's very clear whose side our government is on save for a few daring souls.

[Union Scribe]

72. And it's worked. Obama has heard them and run from any association with the left.

[Enthusiast]

90. Shouting Marxist, Socialist, Muslim

and Kenyan is only part of the smoke screen.

They did the same with Clinton. While they screamed insane allegations about Clinton he went on to sign one devastating right wing piece of legislation after another. I won't be taken in by the same strategy.

[walldude]

152. Wow... predict much? You might want to buy a lotto ticket

because here's Ben Stein espousing your idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=255784&mesg_id=255784

[cui bono]

191. Don't you mean many (who think they are) on the left would still be singing praises?

He's acting just like a Republican now and people still bindly follow him and defend him with no facts, just trying to convince us he's a chess master. It's really embarrassing at this point. Just like the Bushies. I guess every pres has their 25 percenters.

[eleny]

16. I'm just now reading a book about fascism

In it, the author quotes another author who pointed out how FDR kept fascism from taking root in America by sharing some power with conservatives of his time.

I immediately thought of this most recent choice, Immelt.

I can't discuss this much further and certainly don't have the background to argue all the issues. I have serious disappointments in the president. But I couldn't help but think of Obama in light of what FDR did to keep fascism from taking root here by keeping certain enemies close. And we know that Obama is a student of previous presidents.

FWIW my 2¢.

[Enthusiast]

91. I can't buy into that logic.

FDR followed an aggressive progressive agenda, he didn't cave into the wishes of the fascists. What it the title of the book? Who wrote it?

[eleny]

103. I can't recall reading about FDR sharing power either and want to research it myself

My impression of him is like yours.

I'll look for the passage where the author quoted someone else about power sharing and either post it here or send you a PM. But the book Im reading is The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right by David Neiwert.

[whathehell]

110. Yes...and when Obama had a choice of "transformational" presidents, he didn't pick FDR

He picked Reagan.:eyes:

Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard him mention FDR.

[eleny]

114. Except that his pattern is similar to FDR's - please see my reply #111

[eleny]

111. FDR appointed some Republicans to his cabinet...

"Roosevelt appointed Republican Henry Stimson as Secretary of War and Republican Frank Knox as Navy Secretary"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23461755/ns/politics-white_house/

I found this from Neiwert on the web where he makes his case:
"...FDR openly shared power with the Right, appointing noted Republicans to his Cabinet and maintaining a firm coalition with arch-conservative Southern Democrats. The mainstream right thus had no incentive to form a power-sharing coalition with fascism. At the same time, liberalism gained a significant power base in rural America through the many programs of the New Deal aimed at bolstering the agricultural sector. This too may have been a critical factor in fascism's failure."
http://cursor.org/stories/fascismiv.php

In his book The Eliminationists Neiwert quotes from Robert O. Paxton's book Anatomy of Fascism.

" "The ascendant liberalism of FDR effectively squeezed the life out of nascent fascist elements in the U.S.," in no small part because Roosevelt effectively shared power with the Right."

All this made me think of the Tea Party making inroads into the Republican party so that the Party now has two factions.

Neiwart and Paxton both assert that fascism seeks to take root in the poor rural areas first. So FDR's liberal policies aimed at the rural areas worked to undermine a fascist coalition. It appears to me that the Patriot movement in all its forms in the modern era has been able to take root in rural areas so that fascism could be in its second stage of rooting itself in the political system. Paxton identifies five stages of fascim's ascendancy. Taking root in the political system is the second. The Tea Party surely has done this in the 2010 election.

Perhaps Obama is trying to make some sort of coalition with what's left of the original Republican Party, as awful as it may be, which appears to have fallen into a trap by its use of the Tea Party movement. The wealth behind the TP is ready for the next step of seizing power.

Right or wrong, I think you can see how the FDR reference in Neiwert's book made me start thinking of Obama's appointments in that light. It all feels quite dangerous to me. However, he's a student of presidential history and just might be taking a page from FDR's book on how to win the next election. If the Tea Party winds up nominating the next Republican presidential candidate (and we know how ultra conservative their primary voters can be especially in Iowa, SC and New Hampshire) traditional Republican voters might view Obama's style more akin to their own in the general election.

[jody]

17. Many people believe We the People fight over divisive, polarizing issues used as campaign issues

by candidates; e.g. God, gays, guns; from both major parties who are funded by corporatist.

That small group of one half of one percent own over 50% of our financial wealth and control every multinational corporation.

They make up the corporate party who elect and control a majority of congresspersons and pull the strings of every president.

Obama does what he's told because the corporate party has promised him if he does their bidding, they will make him a multi-millionaire which is pocket change to the billionaires who control him.

[Swamp Rat]

18. I need a job. I need healthcare. I need an opportunity that does not preclude me because of age,

health, economic and socio-cultural background, and geographic location. I need the money I paid into Social Security, that was repeatedly denied me.

I need help from my government... but I do not believe this help will ever come.

[lonestarnot]

50. I think you are right.

:hug:

[jaxx]

19. Why would the choice of Immelt need to be defended?

You're not the President so I doubt you know what's going on in choosing who will be best for a position.

[neverforget]

20. Because getting advice from an outsourcer about jobs is a good thing

[QC]

21. You obviously do not understand googledimensional intergalactic chess.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

26. He outsourced he ought to know how to bring them back too.

[DCKit]

30. He said something like: "We can build an 18c.f. refrigerator in China, pay all the costs...

of manufacture and import it to the US for less than we can build it here."

That doesn't sound like a guy who's much interested in bringing jobs back to the US.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DCKit]

32. Great. So he takes a paycut for a couple of years.

He could probably live in high style, for the rest of his life, off the interest on his current fortune - like all the Goldman Sachs people and those from all the other industries running our government for the benefit of the Corporate personages.

However, you'll get no argument from me re: Elizabeth Warren. Timmy and Ben are terrified of her, the RW would do anything to derail her and I find her to be honest, straightforward and able to explain the issues concisely, and in plain English. She's obviously the right person for the job.

[True_Blue]

54. No he doesn't. He's not stepping down as CEO...

because his new position is "not paid by the White House."

"The White House did not address concerns regarding G.E.'s corporate behavior, but an administration official clarified that Immelt would continue in his current role while serving on the advisory panel, as it is "not paid by the White House."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/immelt-appointment-labor-reaction_n_812278.html

[Enthusiast]

92. Funny, I heard near

universal praise of Elizabeth Warren here on the DU. We were very angry with the president because he as much as said she wouldn't get the appointment. I don't remember any criticism of Elizabeth herself. I hardly think 'people here went after her'.

[boppers]

53. Menial non-skilled labor is not where we can compete successfully.

There's no sustainable "jobs" in a field where a human is just as easily replaced by a robot, or somebody in another country willing to work for 20 bucks a day.

[DCKit]

55. There could be competition with a level playing field.

I doubt the people who, until recently, worked for GE and the other manufacturers now based in China, Taiwan, India, etc... had their druthers, they would have chosen to lose their unskilled, menial jobs. Jobs, which I might add, paid a living wage, with good benefits, supported families and provided for their retirement and their children's college.

Unless you have a plan for the US to crank out PhDs in every field, in every age group, by the millions each year, at little to no cost, those unskilled, menial jobs are all we've got to look forward too.

And when everyone has a PhD, an awful lot of those PhDs are going to be driving cabs, answering telephones and performing other menial labor, as well.

We need "Fair Trade", not "Free Trade".

[boppers]

56. Well, without a paradigm shift, it's still a race to global equality.

If everybody was paid equally, there wouldn't be a problem with jobs, as the shipping costs would tend to increase local production.

However, for wages to stabilize globally, many americans are facing drastic shifts in their lifestyles to match those around the world.

[DCKit]

57. Then I guess it's a race to the bottom. nt

[boppers]

60. Equality means that the rich don't get to stay richer than others.

It's a race to the middle.

Those who were absurdly wealthy (which includes a huge part of the US) are losing out, and aren't very happy about it, because, as far as they are concerned, they weren't really all "that" rich to start with.

Sure, they have had cars, houses, televisions, cell phones, so much food to eat that the majority are overweight or obese, $500 hair cuts, breast implants, botox, designer diets (they actually pay money to other people... to eat less.... how's that for wealth?), clothes that change every season, hundreds of channels on their screens, multiple computers per house, furniture that they throw away, "vacations", limited working hours, 2 leisure days a week, an endless stream of gizmos and gadgets to clutter their lives, their own personal armories, huge amounts of living space, their own gardens and yards, rooms in their house for a car (WTF?), food that they could have delivered to them, people who could clean/garden for them, (etc. etc. etc.)...

...but they didn't think they were rich.

[Enthusiast]

95. Great explanation: The rich are losing out.

Yup, I can see that. Corporate profits are in the ash can. :sarcasm:

[socialist_n_TN]

104. And THAT is what is, and always HAS, been wrong................

with the capitalist system. It's based on GREED which means that no matter how much you have, it's never enough. Of course, MOST of the people you're describing actually BELIEVE that they're losing out because they're not really part of the REAL capitalist power structure either. They've just got enough to be on the periphery of things. Capitalism as a system is like a Monopoly game. At the end, there can be only one king with all the money.

The SYSTEM itself has to be torn down and remade FROM THE BOTTOM UP. Or we lose the planet, not just our standard of living. I just hope there's time for the remake.

[bighart]

143. If global economic equality is the goal then Americans are in for

a big downward push in standard of living as we have by far the highest average standard of living of any nation on the planet.

[Enthusiast]

94. Right wing talking points.

Funny how nations with reasonable tariffs can compete but the U.S. that has all these trade deals favorable to the foreign competition can't.

[lovelyrita]

109. Great point.

Why has German manufacturing increased? Why have they not been as effected by the economic downturn as other countries?

There are countries out there doing it right but sadly we cannot seem to learn from them.

[Enthusiast]

189. Thank you, lovelyrita.

Germany has advanced socialized medicine, a shorter work week, far more vacation time, higher wages, yet, still, they can compete. This does not compute.

It's as if those in power in this nation (Republican Party/corporations) hate the American worker. This is something I do not understand. Americans are willing to work harder and longer but these corporations seem to want to damage us. One would think they would look upon the American work force with appreciation.

[boppers]

200. *Free trade talking points

Trade policy goes all over the political spectrum, in very weird ways.

[kath]

69. yeah, a super shitty refrigerator that won't last even 1/5 as long as those bought

50-55 years ago. More semi-disposable crap to fill up the landfills. :cry:

[DCKit]

122. You got that right. I'm on my second refrigerator in ten years, and it's "wobbly".

Unfortunately, both were also among the last built right here in Amurka.

The next time I have to buy appliances, I'll consider European models before I look at any of the outsourced American crap. If I'm not living in a shelter by then.

[girl gone mad]

215. Miele makes very high quality appliances.

I can recommend them.

[Enthusiast]

93. That is enough for me. nt

[neverforget]

38. Right. A business man whose only job is to make the most profit as possible

for the shareholders is going to bring jobs back.

[boppers]

62. Without people buying products, there's no profit.

Jobs are needed to have buyers.... hence, businessmen know that they need to create a climate where workers can buy the things they make.

[girl gone mad]

65. Unless you buy your way into the government.

Then you control the people who control the printing presses. No need to deal with pesky market forces anymore. Just get the government to http://seekingalpha.com/article/105984-general-electric-gets-a-140b-bailout-what-s-the-point-of-aaa">backstop your various Ponzi schemes.

[boppers]

66. Float a business with taxes/bailouts, rather than products?

Ah, that would be government.

Thanks for making that point, it's given me a lot to consider about "big government" and "big business".

[edhopper]

101. By busting unions,

lowering wages and taking away benefits. That seems to work.

Just ask the country's #1 employer Walmart.

Ask the CEO of the late Circuit City, who got rid of all the more senior, higher paid workers who actually knew something about electronics.

Ask the CEO of GM when he made the Hummer the flagship model.

Those CEOs know how to create jobs alright.

[socialist_n_TN]

105. "...businessmen know that they need to create a.........

climate where workers can buy the things they make."

You'd think so, right? In a demand economy this is the way it's supposed to work. However, NOWDAYS they think they've got the whole world to buy their products. It's not based on just the USA's demand anymore. Ergo they can fuck over the US worker and bring them down to Bangladeshi levels.

Also, if they REALLY believed in demand, they would have no problem putting money into the hands of people who would SPEND the money. But they don't. They and their lackey's shoot down and demonize EVERY PLAN to put money into the hands of laid off workers BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM SACRIFICING SOME OF THEIR PROFITS TO DO SO.

It's been this way before. Look at Europe in Marx's time. THIS type of capitalism is what Marx was describing. This is what capitalism IS. It's a system that's so short sighted it can't even see when it's damaging ITSELF. And it's literally KILLING the rest of us.

[boppers]

202. The rich get poor.

Yes, this is what will kill capitalism.

The irony is that the rich think they're working class.

[socialist_n_TN]

207. This will kill capitalism because capitalism.............

will kill itself. That's if the workers don't kill it first. And since I believe it's Satanic, I won't be sorry to see it go. I just hope it doesn't take the rest of us down with it.

Lenin was not wrong when he said that the capitalist WILL sell you the rope used to hang him. That's what happens when you have a system that only counts "How much?" as it's only question.

[boppers]

229. Lenin's dead.

So are most of the states that were built on his ideas.

He built his ideas on defeating an old, dead, model, which is, well, also now dead.

[neverforget]

134. So creating jobs overseas helps American jobs how exactly?

[boppers]

203. How was the french royalty helped by imports?

They lost all their wealth, yes?

[neverforget]

211. huh?

[boppers]

226. So, in this metaphor:

Americans live like royalty off of the peasants of the world.

[Forkboy]

228. yeah, pretty much.

Especially considering that our poorest are still ahead of the world's poorest by miles.

To some, that's good enough.

How about you? What's your opinion on America's poor? Do they have it good enough, especially considering how bad some in this world really have it? America's poor are pretty lucky, aren't they?

[boppers]

230. Ooh, thorny!

I lived homeless on the streets of the US for 18 months.

I never had to kill another human for meat, or commit any other (felony) crime to survive. Now that I'm out of it, I can look back and say "it wasn't so bad, compared to parents selling daughters into rape, or eating their friends and family who died in winter", but when you're in the thick of it, in that bizarre world of desperation and survival.... those egalitarian thoughts don't cross your head.

OTOH (there's always another hand), the comment "America's poor are pretty lucky, aren't they?" has a very thoughtful, and insightful, sting. Yes, I'm lucky. Yes, I'm rich now (in comparison). I sure as hell didn't feel lucky then. Or now.

It's not unlike survivor guilt. Yeah, I didn't die, but lucky? fuck no.

So, my gut response to "Do they have it good enough" would be a "FUCK YOU YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT" reaction, followed by an attempt to explain, and engage.

So, Hi!

[Forkboy]

232. LOL...well, fuck, dude, who can say they sold thier daughter into rape?

Thank God no one has it THAT bad. That makes it all ok. I was homeless, but never sold my daughter into rape. Thank the Gods we have you to show me what a fool I've been for thinking it all sucked. I didn't see how lucky I was to not have to resort to that!

What follows after your reaction of "FUCK YOU YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT"? Is this your idea of engaging? What the fuck did you really learn in that 18 months? It's not what I learned when I was homeless. So engage me.

[boppers]

236. No one has it that bad?

It is that bad.

Sorry to say.

My "ALL CAPS" reaction is one of anger, where folks assume that since their personal anecdote of life on the streets was (relatively) easy, *everybody on the streets* had it just as easy.

If you don't think that people don't sell themselves, their children, everything they have on the streets *to* the streets... I need to engage you. This is what a desperate human soul looks like. It's not pretty.

I need to rattle your cage, and tell you that while it may be fine where you live, it's pretty ugly in other places. I need to tell you that sacrifices have been made. Homeless, the world over, suffer more than most humans can bear or talk about.

[quakerboy]

182. in the long term.

Option 1: Pay me to build appliances, make 20% on them, I buy them over the next 20 years.
Option 2: Pay china to build appliances, make 50% on them. I buy one now, and live in poverty after a few years of unemployment


Which pays off this year? Which do corporations choose time after time after time?

[Union Scribe]

73. Wow. Lol.

[Kalun D]

80. Please Hold Your Breath

Until Immelt and Obama bring back the jobs from China

[Enthusiast]

96. Good suggestion nt

[socialist_n_TN]

34. BWWWWWHHAAAA! Classic! Just upthread was a.........

prediction that this would be one of the answers. The President knows best cos he's got ALL the information. Did you think that included W too?

[jaxx]

35. I didn't think bush had any information.

But how kind of you to point fingers and ask.

[tomp]

89. i've got a finger for you. nt

[Occulus]

41. That response is actually part of the Straussian political philosophy

"The President knows best cos he's got ALL the information", I mean. It is taken from the core values- such as they are- of that particular vile outlook. The commons are too ignorant, too unconnected, too undereducated, to begin to understand all the issues. The philosophy then goes on to suggest that lying to the public in the pursuit of political power is a noble trait or some such.

And yes, it's as far to the right as it is possible to be.

[Enthusiast]

97. Thanks for pointing that out.

We now hear that particular Straussian political philosophy expressed by RWers posing as Democrats. A bit of stealth. Changing hearts and minds, you know, like in Afghanistan.

[xchrom]

138. indeed. nt

[woo me with science]

176. Thank you. nt

[chill_wind]

40. I'll have to remember that argument against political discourse

when the next Republican gets back in office.

"You're not the President."

God, think of all the time I could have saved on DU giving a crap what Bush did or who he chose for what job the last eight years.

[Angry Dragon]

47. ...............

[tomp]

88. well, there you go. exactly as stated upthread.

you should be embarassed to be so predictable.

[theaocp]

128. Put a couple of thoughts behind this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grvpyepkD2o&feature=related

[walldude]

154. Are you fucking kidding?

Um.. leaving aside all the lovely implications of your statement, like "shut up you idiot the President knows what he's doing", I don't need any information to know that the fucking CEO of General Electric will be more worried about profits, wages, and cost controls then he will job creation.

Pull your fucking head out of the sand.

[WCGreen]

24. Nope, he jumped the shark a long time ago....

this is just adding more chum to the mix.

[Marr]

29. Remember how everyone talked about the Tea Party before the midterms,

and insisted that it was a grass roots movement, independent of corporate interests?

And yet as soon as the elections were over, this was the interpretation:



Big business was openly rejoicing at how it had "aced the midterms". And it's the interpretation Obama happily advanced as well, promising to 'build more bridges' and 'work more closely with business community'.

[Hydra]

39. Anybody who thought the 500 or so people who showed up at each Rally

Were unpaid patriotic Americans failed their practical math exam.

There were peace rallys of over 1 million people that were not reported. Yet somehow 500 or so people at each even get front page coverage? And somehow, they are a movement that is "sweeping the nation"?

I always predicted that the movement would disappear in any practical sense as soon as the objectives were met, and they were. I don't think it could have been any more blatant, but somehow there are still people who think the movie they're watching is reality.

[liberal N proud]

37. He created a lot of jobs as CEO of GE

All of them were overseas.

[Still a Democrat]

43. A lot of overreaction here

He has pushed hard for green energy, a cap on carbon emissions, increased R&D spending by the federal government on clean energy, high energy efficiency standards on automobiles, buildings, etc., and an emphasis on manufacturing jobs.

He served on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board which did a pretty nice job and has been an adviser to Obama for years. His role is strictly advisory. There's no real power. If Obama takes any of the advice and acts on it, then we'll have something to talk about.

At a minimum, it's politically astute.

[boppers]

58. All corporations are evil, doncha know.

So, of course the CEO of a US leader in green energy is evil, because, well, corporations are evil.

[Union Scribe]

74. The ones that are evil are, yeah.

[boppers]

83. What percent of evil?

Can we quantify this?

Are all past and present GM employees evil?

[Lorien]

168. What percent have clean hands and do no harm?

And employees? Most of them don't head the corporations that they work for.

[bluestate10]

113. It is not that simple my friend. nt.

[bluestate10]

112. You...you...corporatist, you. I dare you point out something good a corporation does :-) nt.

[boppers]

59. dupe

It wouldn't be the same DU if they ever fixed this bug, would it?

[cantbeserious]

77. All Men Are Known By The Company They Keep - 'nuff said

eom

[bluestate10]

117. True. If one takes a limited view of the world, one is.

Corporations are made of a collection of people. While I decry the Supreme Court designation of corporations as persons, I do accept the reality that every corporation in existence is a simple collection of people, with each person in the corporation performing a function.

Making the assertion that corporations are evil without having met people that work in them is asinine. The fact is every corporation contains passionate liberals and neanderthalic conservatives, with moderates there too. Such is real life.

[cantbeserious]

126. Such Is Real Life - Corporations Are Not Corporeal Beings

How can non-corporeal beings be considered alive and thus granted "rights" under the Constitution?

The rational answer is that they cannot.

Go read Thom Hartmann for the legal history and fiction on US non-corporeal beings.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1605095591/ref=nosim/thomhartmann/

<>

[donheld]

49. Counter to his campaign speeches he ALWAYS chooses Corporations

or Wal-street over mainstreet. ALWAYS.

[boppers]

61. Lilly Ledbetter.

Using gross generalizations tends to lead to quick rebuttals, where only a single example defeats the entire argument.

[bluestate10]

119. The rose colored glasses.

Did not allow that obvious contradiction to be seen. Nor can the contradiction that leaders of many corporations are unhappy with thoughtful regulations that Obama's administration has put into place be seen either. Must be great to live in a world where there is not complexity of life or thought.

[Lorien]

169. Wait, do we get equal pay now?

Oops, no, no we do not.

[donheld]

If you think my argument was defeated by your "Lilly". You aren't paying attention.

Do you read much of DU or just post rosie shit?

[boppers]

199. You used the word ""ALWAYS", not me.

If you cannot defend that kind of argument, I would suggest it's not a very good argument.

[donheld]

198. If you think my argument was defeated by your "Lilly". You aren't paying attention.

Do you read much of DU or just post rosie shit?

[Safetykitten]

63. We can. The Commission of Corporate Executive Innovation.

[somone]

124. Technically, the Commission for Corporate Executive Income Guarantee and Compensation Improvement

[Major Hogwash]

64. I thought it was a decent choice. I'd rather have him than one of Bush/McCain's choices.

Bush put unqualified people into positions of power.
Condileeza Rice for one, and Don Rumsfeld for another.
Neither one of them had the chops to hold those jobs.

They were appointed to Shrub's cabinet by Cheney, because Poppy Bush told him to appoint them.

[Enthusiast]

98. They had more than enough "chops"

it's just that they were morally bankrupt like the rest of the W Administration. Gee, there's a number of similarities there.

[w8liftinglady]

75. regarding this... an edtorial written in my paper by a tea partier

http://www.thedailylight.com/articles/2011/01/22/opinion/doc4d3bbd336be8f657467324.txt

The new Team Obama
Published: Saturday, January 22, 2011 11:37 PM CST
Paul Perry
Guest columnist

Something new is up with Team Obama. We are now replacing an almost new Economic Recovery Advisory Board that was headed by former (1979-87) Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker with a brand spanking new federal agency, the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Perhaps one day President Obama will name a new Bureau of Truth to be over all the new agencies. If he does, don’t expect truth from the Bureau.

The shiny new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will be chaired by none other than famous jobs exporter Jeff Immelt, General Electric’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Immelt has been seeing quite a bit of the Prez lately, having accompanied him on foreign trips and having attended the Washington party and genuflection to the Red Chinese President, who, by the way, is not elected by the people of China.

Most of us sane folks are all for diplomacy even with our rivals, but who was supposed to be impressed by all this groveling? Signals in international politics are important, but submissive signals are dangerous.

Perhaps all the pomp and circumstance will serve to keep voting Americans from concentrating on the still anemic employment numbers. According to the last report I heard on CNBC, which is at present owned by Immelt’s GE, unemployment was 9.4 percent. That number does not include folks who have quit trying to become employed or those working for a third of their former wages.

GE has an agreement to sell its NBC networks, which include CNBC, but that sale has not been completed.

On the face of it, some might say that President Barack Hussein Obama has decided to move to the right in order to bring business into his tent and maybe at least rub elbows with folks who know how the private sector works.

Those of us who actually remember the Clinton Administration remember its tack to the right after losing the House to the Republicans, and good things did happen. Taxes were lowered incrementally, and welfare was reformed. The operating budget was balanced with economic growth. Former President Clinton likes to take the credit, but his real success came with the Republican surge in midterm elections, which pressured his governance to grow up.

President Obama’s regime still spews forth regulations like ragweed spews pollen, empowered by the previous Democrat Congress’ White House-sponsored legislation. New regulations – most, I would argue, unnecessary – continue to hit small businesses and families every day and continue to negatively affect employment.

The recent Obama executive order to examine and do away with regulation offers no relief. The Obama edict exempts both Obamacare and the new financial regulation bill, which between the both create hundreds of new agencies with the power to write regulations. As former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, they had to “pass the bill in order to see what was in it.” I guess we get to see it now and feel it.

The Jeff Immelts of the world are not the answer. During his leadership, thousands of jobs have been outsourced. by GE, which in many ways is less of a domestic company under Immelt than when it was headed by his predecessor. What we need in Washington is the input of real entrepreneurs – not that of companies like GE that have become increasingly dependent on government subsidies through lobbying. We need the wisdom of business leaders who have not taken 16.1 billion dollars from Uncle Sam like GE did under Immelt in 2008.

In short, Immelt and a lot of big business are compromised by government. Charlie Gasparino, a highly respected business journalist, reported that before he left the CNBC division of GE, CNBC reporters and commentators were told in an editorial meeting to take it easy on Obama. About that time, Immelt-headed GE was taking bailout money from the government, not to mention all the government contracts and contacts Immelt’s GE depends on.

We need people in Washington who are not compromised by the system. They exist but for many reasons are rarely consulted. We should demand that they are.

Paul D. Perry is a contributing columnist for the Daily Light. He is a local businessman and mediator and a former Ellis County Justice of the Peace.

[Enthusiast]

100. Exactly what I expected -pure disinformation.

Why post Tea Party bullshit here? Why would you do that?

[bluestate10]

120. The problem is.

Just look at some of the posts from left leaning members. Are they not filled with disinformation also? I say a pox on the teabagger, minds like his ultimately are of no consequence. But I have always viewed liberals as operating to high standards, that more than any thing else, is what disappoints me when I read some of the posts to the OP and the OP's rather cloistered point of view.

[Enthusiast]

192. Oh, bullshit.

When Obama selects a corporate stooge you will hear complains. Daily now this GE stooge? This is good for the American worker how?

Like I said in the previous post, the American worker is willing to work longer hours, with substandard insurance, lower wages and with less vacation than our European counterparts yet corporate America shits on us. Why shouldn't we expect good corporate citizens and why shouldn't we expect a DEMOCRATIC president to treat us right?

[w8liftinglady]

123. Easy.because that is the reality that is being reported as fact.

If we don't reveal what is being spread,how can we hope to report the facts?
place me on ignore if you don't want to see what the nation is writing.If you think Texas is a tiny spot on the map...well,sorry my posting offended you.

[cantbeserious]

76. Obama - Everyday A New Way To Destroy His Base

Hi All,

Over two years in and there can be little doubt that Obama does not care about many of the people that elected him.

Speaking for myself, how can I support a man that I contributed money to and shows such little respect in return?

Despite all the pundits that will criticize me for not supporting him again in 2012, I say simply, when the product is defective one sends the product back to the manufacturer.

Maybe Obama needs to return to the GE plant in China that made him.

[somone]

82. I'm sure the corporate CEOs will knock on doors and fill stadiums for him next year

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

107. Because he needs someone who knows what is going on out there?

The guy is there to give advice about how the economy runs.

Do CEOs outsource because they don't like you? No, they do it to keep the company running or increase its profit margin.

So they would know about job creation and how it happens or how jobs are moved from place to place.

I don't see the point of taking it all personally. Obama will get better advice from this guy than from some Marxist professor who never ran a business.

[bluestate10]

121. Hear, Hear!!! nt.

[w4rma]

129. Considering Obama is pushing yet another job destroying 'free' trade agreement, you are wrong.

His picks are chosen to try to get some of that Citizens United money.

[treestar]

130. Absurd

this is like putting those talking points out there in the air and just grabbing a few of them and putting them together.

[neverforget]

139. "some Marxist professor who never ran a business"

:eyes:

This outsourcer does know about job creation. Unfortunately, it's overseas. And let me guess why he would know how it happens or how jobs are moved from place to place. Easy: maximum profit for the shareholders. They don't give a shit about the workers just how much they make.

The war on the American worker started during Reagan continues.

[Enthusiast]

205. I'll join you

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :fistbump:

[Jakes Progress]

160. Then why didn't Obama hire someone who knows

instead of hiring one of those that has been misrunning the economy.

If you want a government that supports and defends corporations, you get a corporate person for your post. If you want a government that supports and defends the citizens you get person who doesn't feed at the corporate trough.

[quakerboy]

183. Better for who?

not me. Maybe you. In the short term.

[Enthusiast]

204. OMG! Treestar, I will remember your name.

Shouldn't you be on a right wing message board instead of DU? I'm not trying to be mean I just believe you would feel more comfortable with like-minded individuals.

[Change Happens]

116. This is the misguided comment on the Internets!!! I can defend the choice, it is an excellent one...

In order for the President to look credible on this issue, CREATING JOBS, he needed a credible person, a strong track record in business, yes a large corporation, in fact huge, very large figure from the real world, where companies and workers make things, industrial things, green energy stuffs, global, and dominant, we got that guys, him, Jeff Immelt!!! I expect nothing less from our President...

Some of you people talk as if you wanted BErnie Sanders or Jessie Jackson to be in this position...etc.

Give me a break.

[TheKentuckian]

125. Gotta appear "credible" to the predator class that got wealthy strip mining the economy

[bluestate10]

127. Actually.

Bernie Sanders would have been perfect for many on DU. Sanders would spend two years cranking out leftist schemes that takes the economy nowhere. Then in 2012, a rightwing candidate would defeat Obama for President. The left would then have what is desired, rid of Obama and street protests where they can chain themselves to fences or together, force already understaffed cops to cut them loose and drag them off to jail. But, of course, Obama taking a much more realistic course spoils the dream.

[socialist_n_TN]

133. How about a leftist scheme to give unions..........

the power to reopen shuttered factories and give jobs in a worker's co-op type setting for 2 to 3 years? Give them time to see if they can compete with the capitalists and if they can't close them again. At least that would give some folks a job for a couple of years.

Or we could just shovel another few billion to the bankers (the Ur-capitalists) so they could pass out some more bonuses.

[Change Happens]

136. Why can't unions organize better? or stronger efforts to get more done, every

couple of years, we get a new report saying that union workforce is shrinking even more? why is that? This is for me is the most difficult thing to watch happen...

[socialist_n_TN]

141. Well mostly because we've had 30 years of ...............

anti-union propaganda. Actually, that's probably more like 80 years of anti-union propaganda, but it started taking hold 30 years ago. Free trade agreements that bring AMERICAN workers into competition with overseas workers who are paid pennies. I've got to go now, but I'm sure someone else can come up with some more ideas on this.

[liberation]

155. Indeed.

It is like why can't women get raped less? Why can't children make themselves not be abused? Or why can't some people who get show make the bullets not hurt them?

All of these questions and more will forever remain unsolved mysteries of life...

[neverforget]

146. As opposed to the corporate schemes that take jobs overseas which is what

we have had in abundance since Reagan. Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result is insane.

[snagglepuss]

172. The only place Immelt creates jobs is overseas, unless you have info

no one else has.

[xchrom]

135. not me. can't stand the idea.

but there is one and only one narrative in play in the dc beltway.

the neoliberal one.

[TBF]

137. No, can't defend that. nt

[Unvanguard]

140. No.

Though I don't know if I agree with your characterization of it either. It seems politically-motivated, which shows mainly that Obama still doesn't get it.

[grahamhgreen]

145. Yes - anyone who doesn't understand it is "F'n Retarded"!

:sarcasm:

[democrank]

147. It`s called The Hope On Hold Plan.

President Obama is not progressive, he`s center right.

[mdmc]

148. time to compete baby!

corporations over the workers..

[barbiegeek]

150. That Lincoln's cabinet of Rivals thing He likes so much?

Maybe this guy knows inside stuff on how to keep jobs offshore--you know the inside scoop & loop-poles?

[JamesA1102]

151. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer nt

[mzmolly]

153. Can we wait to see policy, before we criticize based upon assumptions?

eom

[Lorien]

170. Evidence, not "assumptions".

[mzmolly]

185. What evidence?

Some are assuming that an appointee will mean that various policy is skewed. There is no "evidence" of this.


Edited for grammar.

[neverforget]

201. The trouble is this guys past blows when it comes to jobs.

[mzmolly]

217. No it doesn't. This guy is creating jobs. The former guy was losing 750K monthly.

eom

[greiner3]

156. Immelt fires Keith;

Comcast comes out of it ok, at least in 90% of the public's eyes. He is rewarded with a powerful post within the White House. Besides that, imagine all the government contracts GE might be in line for now that Immelt is one of 'the boys.'

[Name removed]

157. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TomClash]

165. He brings good things to light?

Obama runs to the center to govern, get re-elected and secure his legacy in the Pantheon of Presidents.

[Hippo_Tron]

171. I can, but you won't like the answer

Immelt is there to negotiate on behalf of corporate America with the administration. Obama needs unemployment to go down 2-3% in the next year and a half and Immelt is going to tell him exactly what they will be demanding in return.

[Recursion]

175. Same logic as FDR appointing Joe Kennedy?

Set a thief to catch one.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

178. Absolutely NOT. n/t

[TacticalPeek]

180. Negatory.

:kick:

[pam4water]

194. No. but there will always be a cheerleader who tries. If it was FDR putting someone in would say

something like, "Set a thief to catch a thief." But I gave up on Obama when he dropped the public option form the Health Care Reform.

[Nye Bevan]

208. Perhaps the head of a corporation that has created 304,000 jobs

knows something about creating jobs? :shrug:

[socialist_n_TN]

209. As many have pointed out, it's not JUST about creating

jobs. It's also about WHERE those jobs are created. We need jobs in here, not in India and China.

[edhopper]

210. You are terribly wrong.

Immelt did not create 300,000 jobs. GE a hundred year old company, has 300,000 employees, WITH HALF ON THEM OUTSIDE THE U.S.

"In 2001, the year Immelt became CEO, GE had 158,000 US employees. In 2009, GE employed just 134,000 Americans. Under Obama’s guy Immelt, GE has shed 24,000 American workers, or 15% of its US workforce."

What jobs did he create here?

[Freddie Stubbs]

212. As the CEO of a large corporation, he has insight as to why employers create jobs

[edhopper]

213. As CEO of GE

he reduced his employees by 24,000 and shipped thousands of other jobs overseas.
Sounds like Cheney's oil company execs only energy task force to me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

214. So he is in the perfect position to advice the President as to what the government can do or

not do that will cause GE hire/fire people.

[edhopper]

216. You forgot the

little "sarcasm" tag at the end.

[Freddie Stubbs]

218. No. I am as serious as President Obama on this

[edhopper]

219. Allowing the Corporations

and Chamber of Commerce to decide what we should do was what the Bush Administration did.
The results were the weakest job growth in 50 years and the biggest financial crisis since the Depression.

Their answer is lower taxes on Corporations, workers giving up benefits and pensions and working for lower wages.
This is what Immelt offers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

220. Immelt won't be making any decisions. He will only be advising the President

[edhopper]

221. Advising him to

do the things I mentioned.
So that is your defense of the nomination. He will give bad, GOPlike advice, but Obama doesn't have to take it?
Yeah, that makes so much more sense than nominating a progressive who really cares about the workers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

222. Would a so-called "progressive who really cares about the workers" give the President advice which

would lead to employers like GE creating more jobs in the US?

[edhopper]

223. Well

President Bush followed the advice of Employers like GE and the Chamber of Commerce and created fewer jobs than any President in 50 years.
You wish to ignore that and keep drinking the kool-aid.

The biggest generator of jobs is small business. Something that outsourcers like GE don't have a clue about.

What advice do you think, other than more tax breaks and deregulation< do you think Immelt will give?

[Safetykitten]

224. Decisions at large corporations.

Make stuff.

Can we make it cheaper somehere else? Yes, then move.

Can we get a tax credit and threaten to move? Yes, get tax credit, wait, then move.

Can we break the union, get a tax credit, then move? Yes, when tax attorney says so.

Can we break union, get a tax cut, then get additional tax credits then move? Yes, when tax attorney says so.

Not hard work in my opinion. That's insight.

[edhopper]

225. Exactly

It amazes me that there are those even here on this board, who still proclaim the old, "the CEOs know more than us" bullshit.
Even though those same CEOs shipped jobs overseas, almost destroyed our economy and only survived because the government intervened.
Let's continue to not listen to the people who were right (the progressive economist) and take advice from those that wrecked us.
Simply amazing.

[upi402]

227. nope!

And the body of your post sums it up for me.

[PufPuf23]

231. If they can, they are a neo-liberal and are on the wealthy/corporate side of a class war.

This would have been a good job for a liberal to head a WPA/TVA/CCC/CETA/JTPA program.

Basic Keynesian economics to build infrastructure and expertise..

I can't defend POTUS Obama's choice of Immelt, unfortunately, or I would.

[Mimosa]

233. Can't defend it, can explain it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638


This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

[edhopper]

234. So far

the only defense I have seen is.
They are smarter than us and know more. So we have to trust them to know what to do.

I for one do not think they are smarter than we are, considering many here saw the housing bubble and financial crisis, while the Wall Street and CEO geniuses closed their eyes.

[Name removed]

235. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.