The head of General Electric told a jobs summit at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday that businesses needed to take the lead on job creation.
At a conference where many of the comments were focused on government barriers to hiring, GE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged there needed to be some policy changes by Congress and the Obama administration. But he said that the responsibility for hiring lay with businesses.
The very same Immelt who led GE while it dumped 34,000 US workers--and added 25,000 offshore workers--since he took over.
14 comments:
"The very same Immelt who led GE while it dumped 34,000 US workers--and added 25,000 offshore workers--since he took over."
Get over it. It's called capitalism. Companies can do whatever the hell they want to earn profits, right?
Correction:
OBOZO-pal "capitalists" can do whatever they want.
Boeing, on the other hand....not so much.
AnonyMouse 7/13/2011 7:35 AM:
The facts:
* massive company H1-B fraud,
* PERM law massive abuses by not only companies but the company law firms HIRED to ILLEGALLY circumvent the PERM laws,
*fraudulent, illegal, and discriminatory hiring practices for the single purpose of filling audit files for big brother audits,
*and many other ILLEGAL and abusive tactics,
exist and are being committed EVERY DAY by companies as large as GE, Wal*Mart, GoldMan Sachs, ManPower, and many, many others.
Companies CANNOT do whatever they want to earn profits and capitalism itself, by its own definition, operates and works ONLY within a framework of non-nefarious execution. Wealth garnered any other way under capitalism is NOT capitalism...it is crime.
Do your homework instead of skulking through the Dad29 blog always writing stupid reactionary comments that have NO basis is research, fact, nor logic.
Wow, St. Revolution is off the rails...yet again. Read for meaning! My initial comment focused on how companies can and will hire the cheapest, fire the most expensive, downsize and/or move overseas, etc. for the sake of being "lean" and "competitive". It is their "right" to do whatever their want with their own property.
That is, of course, you want to be a socialist and make rules and regulations to limit or prohibit those actions.
YOU inferred regarding my apparent lack of regard about fraud, accounting irregularities, tax evasion, etc. Republicans have tended to curry the favor of major corporations in exchange for lax regulations which supposedly promotes "job creation". If you are so concerned about the daily, illegal machinations of said companies, then write to your local congress critter and have he/she put pressure on the federal government to investigate and prosecute the offenders.
Republicans have tended to curry the favor of major corporations in exchange for lax regulations which supposedly promotes "job creation"
Patently false.
Stealing from citizens to benefit Big Biz is a distinctively BI-partisan effort.
"Stealing from citizens to benefit Big Biz is a distinctively BI-partisan effort."
Depends on how one defines "stealing". Examples--Corn based ethanol and public union benefits. YOU would say taxpayers are being fleeced. Perhaps.
Regardless, if you look at our history, corporate malfeasance has been generally attributed to Republican laissez-faire policies, whether it be few rules or refusal to actively enforce those rules. Business ethics tend to put to the wayside when the government is not looking too closely on company activities.
"Generally attributed" is not congruent with reality.
While Armey (R) saw to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, it was CLINTON (and Bob Rubin) who declined to regulate derivatives--and you saw what happened there.
Further, check into Goldman/Sachs' political contribution record, if you dare.
Ethanol is a proven FUBAR, and it is bi-partisan. ADM spent millions of dollars buying (D) pols; but in Wisconsin, the FUBAR was almost entirely (R).
Like I said, BI-partisan.
AnonySqueak:
Why are you always a broken record cliche of irrelevant "knowledge" that the 100 IQ'ers of America like you gluttonize upon?!
Do you know at all how to respond DIRECTLY TO ISSUES POSTED with PROOF?
You write, "...my initial comment focused on how companies can and will hire the cheapest, fire the most expensive, downsize and/or move overseas, etc. for the sake of being "lean" and "competitive". It is their "right" to do whatever their want with their own property..."...
How the fuck do you know? Where is your proof? Post your proof of your blanket absolutist statement.
This is what YOU write...and what the rest of America is force fed. In reality, H1-B holders and international hiree beneficiaries of corporate PERM fraud are, on average, making as much or MORE
$$$ than their terminated American counterparts. I have firsthand experience in this... Explain how this is "less expensive" and "lean" for American corporatocracy? Explain how illegally circumventing PERM is a corporate "right"?
Here is what is known as proof, Johnny AnonySqueak...it is what we "grown-up" bloggers do:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/
http://www.programmersguild.org/RIR/
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/issues/labor_and_economics.html
http://www.hireamericansfirst.org/resources/default.aspx
http://www.myvisajobs.com/ (this web site is a "lunch buffet" of resources to screw the American worker...ESPECIALLY IT...that's Information Technology for you, AnonySqueak)
The TRUTH is, for the corporatocracy in the pocket of the government and vice versa, the law is what they decide it is...no matter WHAT laws are "on the books". That's REALITY...not YOUR cliche BS. "Lean" and "competitive" means "fat and happy" for a select few...at the expense of many...and that is NOT a "right" nor legal.
Again, you write, "...that is, of course, you want to be a socialist and make rules and regulations to limit or prohibit those actions..."...
Again, where is your proof? How is making rules and regulations to limit or prohibit actions a strictly SOCIALIST endeavour? I guess that's Political Science 101 according to AnonyMouse.
And, again, you write, "...YOU inferred regarding my apparent lack of regard about fraud, accounting irregularities, tax evasion, etc. Republicans have tended to curry the favor of major
corporations in exchange for lax regulations which supposedly promotes "job creation". If you are so concerned about the daily, illegal machinations of said companies, then write to your local congress critter and have he/she put pressure on the federal government to investigate and prosecute the offenders..."...
The CORE of my post is fraud and illegal misuse. I wrote NOTHING RE: accounting irregularities, tax evasion, and whatever scatter-brained "etc." you're referring to...
You gotta be kidding me, right?! My "congress critter" is THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION! You 100 IQ'ers TRULY believe you can partner with satan to get out of hell! That tells me EVERYTHING
about your knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. You addressed nothing RE: H1-B and VISA fraud and "cap" raisings, the incredulous misuse, abuse, and fraud of the PERM laws AGAINST the American worker, etc. You probably know little to nothing about H1-B history and abuse and you probably never heard of PERM...yet, again, you spew your eschewed cliche reactionary comments with NO basis in research, fact, nor logic.
When you post, you jackass, start backing up your comments with researched facts.
You've been chasing all 'round Dad29 for months now as a reactionary buzzard parasite with no real value-add input.
BTW, AnonySquonk, "rail" on this...just for you...with my PERSONAL regards:
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
Apparently, from the blogger who loves pinning our current woes squarely on the donkey, when the economy tanks or had tanked its now bi-partisan...got it!
No doubt blame can be assigned to both groups with the derivative fiasco. Regardless of YOUR feeble attempt to label 'generally attributed" as being a "reality challenged", my overall point has not been disproven--the GOP created that financial instrument (the bill in 199 was authored by Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas Billey) and would have bitterly opposed any measure to veto it.
This legislation was the spark to the financial meltdown.
(R) partisans have conniption fits about (D) interfering with economic "growth"--it's in their DNA. So it certainly is easy in retrospect to say now that Clinton ought to have had listened to his advisors and fought against derivatives.
So, bi-partisan in the sense that dems and repubs each take responsibility? Sure. But the culprit and culpability remains squarely on the (R)’s shoulders.
Furthermore, your point about Goldman-Sachs is moot. Republicans also benefit from corporate money to push an agenda. That's "democracy" and "capitalism" in action. Nothing new here.
Regardless of YOUR feeble attempt to label 'generally attributed" as being a "reality challenged", my overall point has not been disproven
Wrong. You never proved it in the first place. Using MSM allegations as "truth" because they've been repeated 1000's of times is not "proof" except in your lobotomized mind.
So, bi-partisan in the sense that dems and repubs each take responsibility? Sure. But the culprit and culpability remains squarely on the (R)’s shoulders.
You should lay off the dope or booze before posting; that way, your verbal meanderings might actually make sense.
"You should lay off the dope or booze before posting"
Typical ideologue comment when a person cannot make a cogent rebuttal.
Fact--The GOP prefers fewer regulations for corporations to grow.
Fact--The GOP repeatedly contests any new rules that will interfere with a company's ability to generate profits and expand the economy.
Fact--In 1929, 1987, and in 2006, lax business rules and a lack of oversight contributed to economic calamity.
Fact: there never was, is not now, nor ever will be "regulations" which foreclose malice, accident, or stupidity.
Therefore, "regulation" per se is not particularly useful.
Fact.
Of course regulations will never stop people from committing evils or wrongs--common sense!--but they are USEFUL in helping to prevent those acts from occurring and providing consequences. Limitations on our choices is the result of a society that desires law and order. Human nature tends to be selfish.
"The power of all corporations ought to be limited...The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."
--James Madison
Yes, so?
I've been pretty clear that--to me--the FLSA, most of OSHA, some of EPA and SEC, (and corresponding parts of State law/regs) are fine.
But we've moved far beyond what one could seriously call common sense at the EPA and with the new fin'l regs bunch, as well as at FCC with their Statist view of the 'net.
Further, while some regs are beneficial, they also have a cost--and other nations have capitalized on those costs, leaving US industry in a very bad position.
Congressional and Presidential laziness and chicanery is about 90% of the problem. That goes for ObozoCare--easily the worst-written program in US history, as well as for the (R) fellating of the finance biz.
Post a Comment