Obama Hosts Jobs Summit
[Guest post by DRJ]
President Obama is hosting a jobs summit today at the White House:
“President Barack Obama kicked off a White House jobs forum on Thursday by saying he’s “open to every demonstrably good idea” to reverse the worst job losses in decades. But Obama said the government’s resources are limited and that growth ultimately must come from the private sector.
“So we can’t make any ill considered decisions right now even with the best of intentions,” he said. “We have to be surgical and we’re going to have to be creative.” Obama appealed to his audience of academics, business and union leaders and local officials to help him find “the biggest bang for the buck.”
***
Obama said the leading question of the day is “how do we get businesses to start hiring again” and asked his guests to “bring their A-game.”He spoke a day ahead of the release of government figures on unemployment. The jobless rate now is 10.2 percent, the highest since the early 1980s, and most economists believe Friday’s report will show it still above 10 percent, perhaps still rising.”
Even I know the answer to this problem: Cut taxes and reduce spending. But the White House clearly doesn’t want those ideas because, according to John Stossel, it won’t invite anyone who supports them.
— DRJ
…and of course, Volcker isn’t welcome at the little party, either.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:31 pmI wonder if they invited the President of GM?
tyree (9d7ff3) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:46 pmRight now, I think that post is vacant; but they do have an Obama-picked Chairman of the Board.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:51 pmShow of hands, how many people here have created or saved a single job?
OK, not you Eric Schmidt, you are a card carrying progressive, and google isn’t exactly a representative of fairness.
bill-tb (365bd9) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:53 pmSmall businesses are the key to job growth. Once the Obama Administration destroys them, there will be plenty of jobs for everyone.
/sarc
JayC (1c4ed5) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:56 pmI wonder, was there anyone there who had to meet a payroll that did not involve taxpayer money ? Anyone whom had to deal with all of the assinine government regulations without being able to call a “friend” who could circumvent those regulations ? Anyone whom actually pays his taxes ? Anyone whom actually earns his money, anyone whom goes out everyday and does the real business of America. More than likely the room was filled with ass kissing syncophants whom have never worked or earned anything, ever.
Edward Lunny (331570) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:12 pmReagan then Bush-43 proved that supply side tax policy does not work, and Clinton demonstrated that demand side does work. Then why call for another round of supply side? I don’t get it!
Perry (26860f) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:17 pmObama appealed to his audience of academics, business and union leaders and local officials to help him find “the biggest bang for the buck.”
Gads–he’s actually consulting academics on how to create jobs? These folks wouldn’t know how to create jobs if Carnegie himself floated them the cash and provided them with a step-by-step manual. Getting “academics” and their endless social engineering theories out of the private sector, and consulting more people with common sense that have actually created jobs, would go a lot further.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:29 pmSo now he is concerned about “ill considered decisions”. I would laugh if it weren’t so serious.
LYNNDH (8d8b19) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:35 pmObama appealed to his audience of academics, business and union leaders and local officials
Assuming “business” means large cap companies who make their profits from their financings and cost cutting (heavy on labor cuts) more than their actual sales, that list right there IS one half of the problem. The other half being all things govt…from the congressional concubines to the bureaucratic barricade minders. I will bet that the business segment also includes a hefty representation from Wall Street and other large finance institutions.
We could simply reword his imperative to read…”How can we maintain our socialist mountain without turning our dwindling private sector into a highly taxed and regulated molehill?” Or any variation thereof.
While way down at the bottom line any fool can see the basic problem is that Americans have been paid a huge amount of money for the same work done by second tier nations at significantly less cost. Regression to the mean can be a bitch. And most bitches are just plain mean.
political agnostic (1ad523) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:40 pm“Even I know the answer to this problem: Cut taxes and reduce spending”
As I’ve said before: When private sector spending is down, the best thing to be done is to also cut government spending.
imdw (a8737f) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:43 pmimdw – You prove over and over that you know nothing about economics or anything else apparantly.
If higher government spending results in a wonderful economy I imagine that California is currently the best performing state in the union. And Michigan is probably second best, right?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:55 pmI get the impression that Perry says that quite often.
Government spending can fix everything.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:57 pmI am still waiting for one of the Leftist to explain the idea that if Defict X is irresponsible and evil, how Deficit 4X is responsible and justified.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:03 pmExplore ways to bring more money into the country than goes out and then let the people keep and then spend their money.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:40 pmCut 15% of the public payroll by cutting the worst performing employees off the public dime.
Make public sector hiring, firing, raises etc merit based. No strict first in first out hiring/firing rules
Bust the public employee unions.
Encourage workers to compete by gaining new skills, by working harder, by producing more, in order to earn more.
Couldn’t the President be penalized (cigs taken away or something like that) when he uses one of his inane cliches? “Bring your A game”.
corwin (76907f) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:48 pmReagan then Bush-43 proved that supply side tax policy does not work, and Clinton demonstrated that demand side does work. Then why call for another round of supply side? I don’t get it!
Comment by Perry
It’s possible hat you are sarcastic. If so, I apologize for thinking you an idiot. One of the reasons we got into the bubble was that the country took a massive economic hit on 9/11. There was already a serious economic slowdown from the end of the internet bubble. The 9/11 attack was a second blow just as slow recovery was beginning.
The Bush tax cuts helped to get the economy going again. In fact, we had very little economic damage from the attacks as a result. In contrast, a similar event in 1906, the San Francisco earthquake, is widely believed to have precipitated the Panic of 1907. If you doubt that, I can supply a reading list. It has to do with huge insurance losses.
Anyway, the point that Bush let things get out of control was in not reining in the housing bubble when it was apparently that it was getting out of hand. There were scandals in 2005 with Fannie Mae that should have been sufficient warning. Peter Wehner was writing articles warning of the excesses until his employer was warned that Fannie Mae would not use their rating service on bonds if they didn’t shut Wehner up. Bush made a few weak attempts at control but Greenspan really let him down on that front.
I didn’t like all the spending that Bush permitted but it is paltry compared to what is going on now and wasn’t the cause of the crash.
MIke K (2cf494) — 12/3/2009 @ 3:13 pmmaybe the real purpose of the summit was to discuss the j*b Ear Leader has been doing to all of us and the economy.
its a good thing i saved my Jimmy Carter money clip from back in the day, cause it looks like i’m gonna need it again before Palin takes office.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:08 pmThanks to the “Jobs Summit”, the need for a second “stimulus” has been averted and the jobs will be flowing like rivers of honey while unicorns roam about the land.
Hope and Change .. Baby !!
Neo (7830e6) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:16 pmI am still waiting for one of the Leftist to explain the idea that if Defict X is irresponsible and evil, how Deficit 4X is responsible and justified.
Simple; in Lefty – World…
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:29 pmDeficits for wars/National Defense = Heinous
Deficits for ginormous spendulus for crooked politicos and taxpayer – funded corporate losers = excellent!
Mike K.-
Perry was not being sarcastic. He appeared on another thread earlier today, initially seeming to want a respectful discussion, that soon turned into pro-Obama talking points and telling all of us “Rush” listeners, etc., to listen to NPR and broaden our perspective.
His comments were followed up by some other posts with high sock-puppet suspicion, could be wrong- just a suspicion.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:29 pm“Gads–he’s actually consulting academics on how to create jobs? These folks wouldn’t know how to create jobs if Carnegie himself floated them the cash and provided them with a step-by-step manual”
All they’ll get you is IS-LM models and estimations of what makes good multipliers. Who cares about that shit?
imdw (c06324) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:46 pm“If higher government spending results in a wonderful economy I imagine that California is currently the best performing state in the union. And Michigan is probably second best, right?”
Watch things get a lot better now that they’re cutting spending.
imdw (c06324) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:47 pmWho is cutting spending and where ?
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:55 pmI think imdw means the forced budget cuts because of the humongous deficits. The idea is, cut spending before you get into such a scrape.
If California and Michigan really do cut spending and don’t play any fiscal tricks, I’d expect a recovery. But raising taxes would make things worse.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (19b6c2) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:01 pmComment by imdw — 12/3/2009 @ 4:47 pm
Please tell this Californian just where our esteemed leaders in the Legislature, or the Governator, have reduced any spending.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:02 pmBTW, Arnold’s not paying those traffic tickets both he and the wife deserve but never received, doesn’t count as reduced spending
I heard Carly Fiorina yesterday. I was impressed. *If* she has the political will to forcefully stick to her guns, she could possibly lead Cali out of the great abyss (and so could DeVore, based on hearing him). Of course, the really hard part is getting either one into office.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:14 pmimdw, you really are not paying any attention are you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:18 pmI thought imdw was being sarcastic, but maybe I’m wrong.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:20 pmComment by Dana — 12/3/2009 @ 5:14 pm
Except, Carly is running for the United States Senate, and as a Senator, would have virtually no power to influence the direction of legislation in Sacramento.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:23 pmThe one to watch is Meg Whitman, who wants to replace Arnold; she would have the power.
Carly, if elected, will just be one of one-hundred who get up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say: Good Morning, Mr/Ms President!
Neil Cavuto said today on Fox Business that no representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USChamber) or the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) were invited to the jobs summit. Both advocate lower taxes and free enterprise solutions to create jobs.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:30 pmOnly certain kinds of jobs were being discussed in the summit, with only certain kinds of people.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:33 pm“…union leaders…”
Well there’s your problem.
TheAudacity (2fd5ad) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:43 pmComment by DRJ — 12/3/2009 @ 5:30 pm
Neither did they invite the NISB.
No voice from the manufacturers, but they’ll hear from the AFL/CIO.
No voice from the world of commerce, but they’ll hear from the SEIU.
No voice from the world of small, independent business, but they’ll hear from Academe.
Just business as usual in a Left-wing Government.
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:43 pmThe New-Deal Re-dux!
Watch things get a lot better now that they’re cutting spending
If you had actually traveled through Michigan the past few years, you’d fully understand why I mock your post, thoroughly. Detroit’s completely bombed out, and now the surrounding burbs are following suit, with mansions going for mere fractions of what they were worth less than 5 years ago. There is no industry left after auto and auto – related subsidiaries and suppliers, and aside from Ford, the others will never return with any semblance to their former selves. Michigan has one of the most onerous business taxes in the country, courtesy of their idiot Canadian Governor, whose only solution to the state’s deepening economic disaster is to raise more taxes. It’s surprising to no one that Obama is considering appointing her to some high – level position in the near future – economic idiots of a feather.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:47 pmAD – RtR/OS, true, she is running for Senate, but I believe if she makes into office, it will send an extraordinarily loud and strong message to the Democrats in California, who have virtually driven the state into the ground. And that will have a positive effect on California.
Boxer has spent 17 years as one of our senators and done next to nothing that represents the will of the people. She is in large responsible for the Delta Smelt, and ESA, which has resulted in a 40% unemployment rate in the central valley. She is pushing hard and heavy for Cap and Trade, which will indeed have a direct effect on us here; she supports Card Check, and has always been in the back pocket of the unions; she has only passed three pieces of legislation in her nearly two decades in office, and I could go on…
Anyway, while Whitman would indeed hold more direct power within the state, it would benefit us greatly in the long run and with the bigger picture in mind to have a strong conservative, whether Fiorina or Devore, representing Cali in the Senate.
Anything to muster up some optimism for our state.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:55 pmDana – I hope that your wishes come true.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:58 pmDetroit’s completely bombed out, and now the surrounding burbs are following suit, with mansions going for mere fractions of what they were worth less than 5 years ago.
If I’d known they were going to sell the Silverdome for a little over $500K, I’d have applied for a First-Time Home Debtor’s Credit and bought the damn thing myself. I could have even used the land to set up my own private racoon hunting preserve.
Another Chris (470967) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:07 pmOne solution to the Delta Smelt is to stop sending a bunch of Socialists to Sacramento and to have our annoited ones actually accomplish something re diverting water around the Delta for the use of the Central Valley, and Southern California (which, to a large extent, financed the building of the California Aqueduct). As the unemployment problem spreads outward like a plague from Fresno and environs, perhaps some of the touchy-feely idiots in the other parts of the state will get the message – though I seriously doubt it will get through the thick skull of that crazy woman in Santa Barbara who is the public voice of the smelt (maybe when they cut off the water to Santa Barbara?).
AD - RtR/OS! (2eab1e) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:07 pmI don’t think the average Dem legislator in Sacramento gives a tinker’s damn whether or not Boxer wins or loses, but they care mightely whether or not they’re in the majority in the Legislature, or even there. And, the ag-disaster in the Valley can be laid right on their doorstep, and they know it, and will do all in their power to camaflauge it and shift the blame to elsewhere. Every consumer needs to be complaining to Sacramento about the increased costs of produce and other ag products since the loss of production is slowly driving up the costs in the marketplace, just as the Feds fascination with ethanol has driven up the costs of other foodstuffs.
“No voice from the manufacturers, but they’ll hear from the AFL/CIO.
No voice from the world of commerce, but they’ll hear from the SEIU.
No voice from the world of small, independent business, but they’ll hear from Academe.”
The article that DRJ linked to describes the crowd as: “more than 100 CEOs, academics, small business and union leaders and local officials.”
That would seem to me to involve “the world of commerce” and “small, independent business.”
imdw (490521) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:12 pmComment by JD — 12/3/2009 @ 5:58 pm
Gad, JD, me too! Knowing that if the right people get into office, it would help clear out the dead wood, and we could move back to being fiscally responsible, as well as actually encouraging job creation rather than impeding it, and, considering the new move afoot for a part-time legislature, I am guardedly hopeful.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:14 pmHow many jobs have the AFL/CIO, SEIU, and the Academy created or saved, imdw?
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:21 pmThese idiots have no intention of creating real jobs.
They are pushing for tax breaks (or tax free status) for dying newspaper companies, but no tax breaks for the rest of small business in America.
Why ? Because an entire nation dependent on the welfare state they are creating will vote for the Democrats endlessly. I don’t want to hear about some phony “jobs summit”. What a farce….
DaveinPhoenix (988dba) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:22 pmThat would seem to me to involve “the world of commerce” and “small, independent business.”
The Obama administration declared war on the US Chamber of Commerce a few months ago, and has actively courted a few of it’s largest members to break away, an unprecedented move for a WH. They’re more hostile to small business than FDR ever was, and that’s saying quite a lot.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:24 pmDana – Part-time legislatures are inherently better than full-time. The less time any legislature spends mucking with our lives, the better.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:26 pmFYI – http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/white-house-talking-points-declare-open-war-on-u-s-chamber/
Check out the comments about the US Chamber being a “right wing nutjob org in the manner of Fox News.” You could fit the number of lefties that understand basic economic theory in a rabbit hole.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:27 pm“How many jobs have the AFL/CIO, SEIU, and the Academy created or saved, imdw?”
Labor groups brought us the weekend and the academy brought us education. But I think the goal here was to get representatives from labor, business there to bring their interests, but the academics providing knowledge.
“They’re more hostile to small business than FDR ever was, and that’s saying quite a lot.”
That’s very nice but I’m just quoting the article.
imdw (842182) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:28 pmI ran that through BabelFish, and it did not recognize the language you are speaking. It looks like English, and kind of sounds like it, but it isn’t. Either that, or you answered a question other than the one you were claiming to be answering.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:31 pmAndrea Bocelli is singing with Natalie Cole on PBS right now. Even singing a simple Christmas song, he has an incredibly powerful voice.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:33 pmDon’t worry. You’ll just disagree with it anyway.
imdw (842182) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:33 pmSeriously, imdw. How does what you typed answer the simple question I asked?
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:37 pmYou can’t figure out why labor and the academics were brought in? I dont think it was because they hire people. I think its because they represent workers and bring knowledge, respectively.
imdw (96b4d6) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:48 pmimdw, and you believe that? ROFL
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:50 pmAgain, not what I asked, imdw.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:55 pmHave you all lost your minds??
Pansy (2b6d49) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:58 pmWhy are you spending your mental powers on this obvious piece of craven propaganda for Obama and his commie elite cronies? They don’t give a hoot about jobs in the traditional sense. Their goal is attracting more morons and opportunists for cushy jobs in the shadow, commie corrupt economy.
Its no wonder this administration didn’t see the need to invite those who who support cutting taxes and reducing spending because if you believe (as this administration does) we don’t have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem, why would they invite them?
A bit of context,
The American Enterprise Institute’s “Enterprise Blog” recently ran a chart from a J.P. Morgan report showing that less than 10% of President Obama’s Cabinet has private-sector experience, the least of any Cabinet in a century. From the stimulus to healthcare reform and cap-and-trade, Washington is now run by people who think they know how to run everything, when in reality they can barely run anything.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:00 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Anq88-WUX0&feature=player_embedded
This is pretty incredible. Sorry for the threadjack, but I just watched them do a duet on PBS.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:20 pm“Again, not what I asked, imdw.”
you can’t figure out that while there’s a bunch of people who work for or are hired by labor unions and the academy, that’s not really why they were brought in?
imdw (c06324) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:27 pmAgain, not what I asked, imdw. The question I asked could not be much simpler. You persist in answering other questions not asked of you. Remember when you were complaining about that this morning?
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:32 pmunions represent unions, not individual w*rkers.
/pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:32 pmUnions no longer represent the worker, they enrich Dem politicians. There is really no way to debate that it is a fact.
Mr. Pink (532d43) — 12/3/2009 @ 7:36 pm“Again, not what I asked, imdw.”
You asked me how many jobs they created or saved. I’m telling you there are people who work for them. You can go find the numbers if you research it somewhere. But that’s not why they were brought in.
imdw (7cc81b) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:04 pmI give up. The obtuse, it is thick with this one.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:06 pmNational Federation of Independent Businesses
Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
No need to talk to these people about how to create jobs. Clearly, the Academy and SEIU, and AFL/CIO bring much more to the table.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:10 pm“No need to talk to these people about how to create jobs. Clearly, the Academy and SEIU, and AFL/CIO bring much more to the table.”
I’m not understanding this. You didn’t see that they brought in CEOS and small business reps? I don’t know how many CEOs they brought in, but I would venture a guess that they employ more people than any one they could have brought in from NAM or the COC.
imdw (00bfab) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:13 pmThe 3 groups I listed above represent groups that employ over 140,000,000 people, imdw, so the guess that you ventured would be wrong wrong wrong.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:20 pmI’m more a novice at business than most other things, but Cavuto said that the people NOT at the job summit today represent about 140 million jobs in the US. That has to be over 1/2 of the jobs in the US, right?
Of course, when Obama wants legislation crafted he only asks the Dems to work on it, so I guess he’s consistent.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:24 pmNot copying JD, I was typing my post while you were posting yours. Sorry. (I type sloowwwllly)
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:26 pmI heard that figure on the radio today, MD.
Oregon vs Oregon State is a heck of a game.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:29 pm“The 3 groups I listed above represent groups that employ over 140,000,000 people, imdw, so the guess that you ventured would be wrong wrong wrong.”
They represent them. They don’t actually employ them. I’m sure a talking head from the NAM can talk about theories or running a lobbying group. But actually having business interests are the CEOS. NAM and the chamber of commerce as organization probably employ less than, say Disney, who was there. Also there were:
Eric Schmidt, Google
imdw (c06324) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:31 pmRandall Stevenson, AT&T
Surya Mohapatra, Qwest
Frederick Smith, Federal Express
Brian Roberts, Comcast
James McNerney, Boeing
Andrew Livens, Dow
Peter Solmssen, Siemens
Stephanie Burns, Dow Corning
In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the SEIU had a larger payroll than the chamber of commerce and NAM put together.
imdw (c06324) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:34 pmOh for the sake of fuck. You are not even trying to be honest any longer. No pretense whatsoever.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:39 pmimdw,
The Obama Administration invited people who share their views on job creation rather than invite people with different ideas. Isn’t that what Democrats said Bush and Cheney did?
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:41 pmOh for the sake of f*ck. You are not even trying to be honest any longer. No pretense whatsoever.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:41 pm“The Obama Administration invited people who share their views on job creation rather than invite people with different ideas. Isn’t that what Democrats said Bush and Cheney did?”
I don’t know the views of Frederick Smith, of FedEx but I do know he contributed to the McCain campaign and served as an adviser for it, and not the Obama campaign. So I’m guessing they don’t really share THAT many views.
imdw (27a5be) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:51 pmDonating to McCain does not necessarily mean what you think it might mean.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:54 pmimdw,
The Obama Administration is working to slam-dunk FedEx in favor of its competitor, the Teamster-supporting UPS. I really doubt Mr. Smith says anything but “Yes, Sir” when he’s at the White House.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:56 pm“Donating to McCain does not necessarily mean what you think it might mean.”
Same with advising him. Yes. I can’t be sure WHAT he said. But here DRJ is telling me Obama is bringing in only people who share his views, so maybe DRJ can tell us what Frederick Smith’s views are. Because to me it looks like Obama is bringing in a McCain donor and adviser.
imdw (27a5be) — 12/3/2009 @ 8:57 pm“The Obama Administration is working to slam-dunk FedEx in favor of its competitor, the Teamster-supporting UPS”
That article talked about Congress changing the law. And changing the law so that FedEx and UPS ground operations are under the same act, the NLRA. That’s hardly a “slam dunk” to be treated the same as your competition, is it?
imdw (017d51) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:02 pm“a” being the operative word. Like you are being a deliberately obtuse twatwaffle.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:03 pmBut I do find it fascinating that you think that business leaders facing potential regulation by congress would turn into yes men to the president. How do they ever advocate for themselves?
imdw (017d51) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:05 pmOh, for the sake of f*ck. I am going to ask a serious question. Can anyone here point to a thread where this imdw thingie was not a disingenuous crapweasel?
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:05 pmFrom the link:
In addition, George Will begins the article by stating this is one more example of the Obama Administration’s fidelity to organized labor.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:11 pmimdw:
Let’s ask former GM CEO Rick Wagoner how things work out when you stand up to Obama.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:19 pm“In addition, George Will begins the article by stating this is one more example of the Obama Administration’s fidelity to organized labor.”
I got that george will said some generalities about the administration and unions at the beginning. But then the specifics about this law were about congress. Like the part that I read, and you quoted.
imdw (de7003) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:20 pmOr institutional investers, DRJ. Or litigants in a bankruptcy.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:20 pm” Let’s ask former GM CEO Rick Wagoner how things work out when you stand up to Obama.”
Here’s how the article starts:
“Time and time again, General Motors Corp.’s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.”
Maybe this guy is in a slightly different position than the FedEx CEO, who at most is facing being made equal to his competition?
imdw (de7003) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:23 pmimdw
those that can do, those that can’t teach, and those that can’t teach gym rejigger the global warming numbers and get government grants.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:26 pmBut maybe you are right. And nobody opposes the administration on anything.
imdw (de7003) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:27 pmimdw:
It’s not just Congress. The Wall Street Journal also addressed how the Obama Administration is helping unionize companies like FedEx.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:27 pmWho, exactly, made the argument that nobody opposes them on anything?
JD (848a9f) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:29 pmimdw:
The articles clearly state that FedEx will be at a disadvantage because UPS has close ties to the Teamsters, while FedEx doesn’t.
As for Wagoner, I suspect every halfway intelligent CEO learned from his experience.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:29 pmThat is just “making them equal”, DRJ.
JD (848a9f) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:31 pmimdw-it sure lives up to the unscrambled version of his anagram …
(grin) Come to think of it, imdw-it may be the only one reading these comments hwho doesn’t understand my comment here … sort-of recursive, innit ?
Alasdair (205079) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:33 pm“The articles clearly state that FedEx will be at a disadvantage because UPS has close ties to the Teamsters, while FedEx doesn’t.”
The article says UPS is a “teamster stronghold” and that UPS and the teamsters are aligned on getting FedEx treated equally. “Close ties” beyond this I don’t see. I’m sure they both see that it would be to their advantage that FedEx be treated like UPS, but at most what FedEx fears is that they’ll end up a “teamster stronghold” as well. I’m sure anti-union folks would get up in arms about this, but there’s no denying they’re fighting to not be treated like UPS.
imdw (490521) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:39 pmYes, heaven forbid they be allowed to make their own decisions about their own business model. Quelle horror.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:41 pmAlasdair – Being a dimwit is one of its few skills.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:42 pmimdw,
You don’t have to agree with my links but at least read them:
UPS, Congress and the Obama Administration are working together to make FedEx’s situation more precarious, a risk that does not affect UPS as much because its system is more regional than integrated and because it has a good relationship with the Teamsters, so it’s not as likely to be imperiled by disruptions.
It doesn’t take much to put a company at an economic disadvantage in a competitive environment. It takes even less in a recession.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:49 pmC’mon, DRJ. All you are getting is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXy_Ow3UTcE
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:51 pmYou don’t have to convince me that this would be a hit on FedEx and they don’t want it and that UPS doesn’t like to have a union while its competitor doesn’t have one. Clearly UPS is for this and FedEx against.
imdw (017d51) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:56 pmFair enough (although FedEx does have a union), and thanks for the discussion.
DRJ (dee47d) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:01 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNJND3By3Mg
I think this one is a more accurate representation, Eric.
😉
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:05 pmThis is almost as good as the Distracted Driver Summit!
Patricia (b05e7f) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:53 pmOh, BTW … I would not click on that link in #102.
JD (4a5c67) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:55 pmMissed any video of the jobs summit but heard on radio coverage of President Obama lighting the National Christmas tree, exclaiming as the seasonal symbol was lighted to the assembled crowd something along the lines of, ” How about some of you helping me out here.” No doubt hundreds of unemployed Americans on site immediately applied for the positions.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 12/4/2009 @ 2:17 amNo doubt dogcrap uses the self service pump.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/4/2009 @ 2:27 amwho at most is facing being made equal to his competition?
Tell us how you think the capitalism model in a free democracy is supposed to work. Not a command – and – control market like the Chinese, which is exactly what you just described above.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/4/2009 @ 7:38 amWhen you talk about “made equal” in the FedEx UPS dispute, you are actually saying the consumers and investors make up the difference.
Why not free UPS from the NRLA restrictions instead?
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/5/2009 @ 8:39 am