GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head new White House jobs Panel...Obama thinks you're stupid

[trayNTP]

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will announce Friday that Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric Co., will head a new White House board aimed at finding ways to foster private-sector job growth.

The board will replace an existing panel called the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

The name of the new panel stresses competitiveness and job creation, which are expected to be themes of Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address next week. It will be called the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Mr. Immelt also served on the previous panel. Mr. Volcker will not join the new council...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704747904576094943614276776.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter

Obama must think people are dumb. Senator Bernie Sanders exposed Immelt for the outsourcer that he is during filibernie last month.

This is what the head, the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, said in 2002, December 6:

When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China. You need to be there. You need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to 5 billion. We are building a tech center in China. Every discussion today has to center on China. The cost basis is extremely attractive. You can take an 18-cubic-foot refrigerator, make it in China, land it in the United States, and land it for less than we can make an 18-cubic-foot refrigerator today ourselves.

Gee. A couple of years ago when GE had some difficult economic times, and they needed $16 billion to bail them out, I did not hear Mr. Immelt going to China, China, China, China, China. I did not hear that. I heard Mr. Immelt going to the taxpayers of the United States for his welfare check.

So I say to Mr. Immelt, and I say to all of those CEOs who have been so quick to run to China, that maybe it is time to start reinvesting in the United States of America. But it is not just Mr. Immelt. I do not mean to just pick on him. It is all of them. They all see the future in China, in Vietnam, in countries where people work for pennies an hour.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dKGmFSG6hksJ:sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/%3Fid%3D387b127b-1f18-4032-b07d-92e17452e219%20%22transcript%22%22This%20is%20what%20the%20head,%20the%20CEO%20of%20General%20Electric,%20Jeffrey%20Immelt,%20said%20in%202002,%20December%206:%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Maybe this is Immelt's way of "reinvesting in the USA", but for some reason, I doubt it.

GE + White House = MSNBC

Just more corruption. Obama's looking for that positive coverage at MSNBC to continue through 2012. Corruption is corruption, and anyone who refuses to admit that a so-called "news" network being openly connected to a White House is a problem, must themselves have a problem.

And no, Fox News and the 2008 GOP candidates don't make Obama and MSNBC any less corrupt. They all are.

[RandomThoughts]

1. There is so little news coverage on cable news networks.

Watch a few Democracy Now shows, or even some foreign news and you can see how little the media in the USA actually talks about.

Some of it is for politics, some for distraction, and some do ok.


I actually heard Chucky talk about mentioning 'coffee' not 'sweets'. He doesn't know they are the same thing.


The Green Mile (Trailer)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3bv8c_the-green-mile-trailer_shortfilms

Make that two miles.

[trayNTP]

2. I guess this topic is one no one here wants to discuss because they can't explain it away

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Empowerer]

4. Who would you like to see in this position?

[Armstead]

16. Perhaps a businessman who actually is a patriotic American...

...not the head of an unpatriotic global multinational corporation that doesn't give a shit about this country

[Empowerer]

31. That's pretty vague - it doesn't answer my question

You've made clear you don't like this choice. But who do you think he should have picked?

[trayNTP]

17. Doesn't matter. The pattern of Obama picking corporate idiots who created the problem does.

Try again.

[Empowerer]

33. Ok - I'll try again

Who do you think he should have picked?

It's not a trick question.

[trayNTP]

38. "WHO" doesn't matter, therefore, I'll ignore it. "WHAT" he should have picked is

someone who is not going around gleefully talking about the future being investment in China who already heads a company that is a heavy outsourcer.

There are enough economists, activists, labor leaders, etc, out there that he could have chosen from to show that he 1) understands the problem and 2) gives a crap about it, but you know what? They wouldn't have brought in the corporate money that Obama 2012 needs, and that's all they care about.

But, I'm sure you all will faint again at rallies when they tell you it's you he needs.

The system sucks, and this move is all about satisfying their corporate masters.

[Empowerer]

44. WHO DOES matter

You are talking in the abstract but seem unable or reluctant to be specific. You say that "there are enough. . ." suitable people, but you don't name anyone.

It's interesting that people are very upset about who he picked but can't seem to identify anyone in particular who would be a better choice. It's always easy to lambaste what is and demand something different - the hard part is coming up with something that's actually better in reality.

My question was an honest one - I am really curious about who people think would be a good choice. I find it odd that, instead of straight answers, I'm instead getting vague responses and, in some cases, outright snark.

[trayNTP]

53. For the question you are asking, "WHO" doesn't mean squat. WHO I would nominate is irrelevant, and

I don't NEED to have a name. What matters is the pattern behind Obama's appointments. The "WHAT" and the "WHY."

"WHO" I would appoint in the fantasy of me as President adds nothing to the conversation, therefore it is a waste of time. I described for you what a "Jobs" panelist doesn't need to be, and groups where one could have been selected from instead of from an outsourcing company.

You're not making a point by asking me a pointless question, so you may as well drop it, because I'm not playing that foolish game. Learn to focus on an issue for once, instead of a freaking individual. You want a name, so you can flip the judgment to "ME", the "OP", well you may as well move on.

Discuss what we know has been done and why, or don't discuss anything at all.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. Jim Sinegal. nt

[Empowerer]

51. He would have been a great choice

I wonder if he was available or if he would have accepted if asked?

Thanks for actually suggesting someone. :-)

[Skittles]

24. how about someone who isn't an Offshore Whore?

how about that?

[Empowerer]

32. How about just answering my simple question?

[Skittles]

35. I DID

unless you think there is one person qualified to hold that position

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/21/immelt-appointment-labor-reaction_n_812278.html


is it so much to ask for - appointees that are on the side of the AMERICAN WORKER???

[Empowerer]

45. No, you didn't

You did what several others have done in response to my straightforward question. You laid out your criteria (or, in truth, the criteria you think is NOT worthy) - which I did not ask for - but failed to mention even one person you believe meets that criteria.

[ProudDad]

58. Dean Baker would be a step up...

A larger step up would be Robert Reich...

And the largest step up would be Herman Daly ...

http://steadystate.org/

With Daly we'd be heading in the direction toward sustainability...

Instead of planet death...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

6. actually this OP is pretty stupid.

:shrug:

[trayNTP]

12. Really? How so? Did Immelt not say what he did? Is MSNBC not trying to be the opposite of Fox, and

thus, just as invidious?

What's "stupid" about any of it? Enlighten me.

[Union Scribe]

25. What a comprehensive rebuttal.

[BklnDem75]

7. Unrec. Look up the word corruption

Preferably political corruption which you are claiming. Immelt has been on Obama's Economic Advisory Panel since February 2009. Who do you think would be a better fit for the position? As far as the quote goes, he's the head of a multinational conglomerate. Cherry picking something he said in 2002 is a bit ridiculous. Relating Immelt, the CEO of GE to positive coverage of Obama on MSNBC? Brilliant! You forgot to mention CNBC who's only acting like they hate him. Tricksters all of em! I honestly hope you didn't hurt yourself with that stretch. Btw, welcome to DU. Being new and calling a network with a semblance of left leaning coverage corrupt doesn't sound like trolling at all. :eyes:

[trayNTP]

14. Him being on the team since 2009 is true, and the problem. He should have never been, and it changes

nothing about the point being made here. Quite the opposite. It further substantiates it.

[BklnDem75]

21. Not sure what point you were trying to make

You went on this whole corrupt MSNBC tirade and ended up in Albuquerque. You honestly made no points at all.

[trayNTP]

41. Thought most would be smart enough to see that the excerpts said it all, therefore I could

be loose in my comments. Didn't need to provide much "explanation", so I could make the point that the guy Obama appointed was CEO of the company that owns MSNBC, which is, of course, a more "Obama" favorable network than oh, let's say, the GOP-favoring Fox News.

You all may get into this "MSNBC is on our side" and "FOX is on their side" nonsense, but I consider all of that to just be dumb, when the news media is supposed to be informative. If it's all side-taking and commentary, then they should be forced to call themselves Fox Views and MSNBC Views, not news, or not the best in "politics." To suggest such about "politics", is to imply a focus on "news", not opinion.

Obama choosing an MSNBC-owning corporate master, just validates much of what people already knew about who's calling the shots, how the Dems are wusses because they fear the corporate media, and the fact that Obama is completely and totally only about Obama.

[BklnDem75]

70. I repeat, your analysis is a stretch at best

The CEO of MSNBC is also the CEO of CNBC who's anything but favorable towards Obama. Once again you're going on this network tirade with nothing but your gut feelings. Did you simply force yourself to forget Santelli who considers himself one of the founders of the tea party movement? Why are you purposely leaving out CNBC?

[KoKo]

81. Saturday, April 17, 2010 After Getting Bailed Out By American Taxpayers, General Electric Pays ZERO

Saturday, April 17, 2010
After Getting Bailed Out By American Taxpayers, General Electric Pays ZERO U.S. Taxes, Pretending that All of Its Profits are Overseas


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/04/after-getting-bailed-out-by-american.html

General Electric got bailed out by American taxpayers.

Specifically, it was given $139 billion in FDIC guarantees and support by the Federal Reserve for it's commercial paper (see this).

So you'd think that GE would return the favor by paying American taxes, right?

Wrong. GE paid no U.S. taxes for 2009.

As CNN points out:

GE had plenty of earnings last year -- just not in the United States. For tax purposes, the company's U.S. operations lost $408 million, while its international businesses netted a $10.8 billion profit.

Indeed, as Forbes notes:

Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

MUCH MORE AT:

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/04/after-getting-bailed-out-by-american.html

[BklnDem75]

83. The bailout was under Bush

You fail to point out how that leads to favorable coverage from MSNBC, while at the same time getting unfavorable coverage by CNBC. You do know they're both owned by GE, right?

[ProSense]

8. "Corruption is corruption, and anyone who refuses to admit that

...a so-called "news" network being openly connected to a White House is a problem, must themselves have a problem."

Definition of "corruption"

Some one has a problem and it's not the President.

[trayNTP]

11. Fascism is the merger of state & corporate power. Fascism, corporate governance is corruption.

The definition itself is irrelevant. There are many different examples of corruption, and the media being the government, as it now is, instead of being a watchdog for the people is the most destructive type of corruption for a so-called Democracy.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we have destroyed ourselves...

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." - Abraham Lincoln

Forget about that these days.

Corruption is Corruption, and this is just more corruption...the inevitable result of a fictitious two-party system. "Two" is so much easier to corrupt for their corporate masters.

[ProSense]

22. Hmmm?

"Corruption is Corruption, and this is just more corruption...the inevitable result of a fictitious two-party system."

So this isn't about Obama? There is no difference between the parties and Democrats are trying to destroy America?

Here's a difference: May I quote Alan Grayson?

[trayNTP]

42. "There is no difference between the parties and Democrats are trying to destroy America"??? Where

did I say that?

What I said was more developed than that shallow assessment.

What I said is a two-party system is easy for wealthy, corporate profiteers to corrupt in a system dominated by money. The difference between the two parties is, the Democrats toss and turn at night over how they sell the people down the river to raise the money from corporate traitors to keep their jobs, and the Republicans don't.

[Armstead]

19. You are correct -- Corruption is corruption....And this is corruption

It is an absolute moral and political corruption of the principle of supporting the American economy, and salvaging the American working class, to appoinhjt the head of a corporation that sold this nagtion down the river and basically thumbed its nose at the American working class.

I have no problem with your strong support of Obama. I just wish that sometimes you would take those blinders off and admit it when this administration does things that are less than principled.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. "Competitiveness"...

Code for lower wages, fewer benefits, less job security for American workers. :puke:

[ProSense]

10. "Jobs"

Code for offshoring?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

15. My God -- The heir to Jack "Outsourcer in Chief" Welch?!?

Jack Welch was one of the people who were the most important in making it legitimate to gut the American Economy and Screw American Workers through outsourcing.

He made it a point of pride to say that GE was no longer an American company but a global one, with no allegiance to any single nation.

And his successor has been appointed by Obama to find ways to create American jobs?!?!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[ProSense]

18. "And his successor has been appointed by Obama to find ways to create American jobs?!?!"

He'll screw it up. There will be no jobs and Obama will go down in flames, proving that everyone should have voted for Hillary.

Mission Accomplished.

[Armstead]

20. I am assuming that is sarcasm

[Union Scribe]

26. Primary dredging? That's all you've got?

Lol! Even you can't defend this, so you whip out some desperation ace like that?

[ProSense]

27. Defend?

How about a point?

What do you thing is going to happen as a result of this appointment?

[Armstead]

69. Well the culture of GE will become even further embedded in policy

Your blinders are obscuring a recognition that the head of a company that has helped to destroy the American economy and championed outsourcing is not a good pick for a position that is supposed to revitalize employment in the U.S.

And as the son of a long-time GE employee who took early retirement because he was disgusted at the emerging corporate culture at GE during the Welch years, and as someone who grew up in a city that GE decimated between the 70's and the 90's, I say that is not a good thing.

.

[ProSense]

72. "not a good pick for a position that is supposed to revitalize employment in the U.S."

So you think the appointment was for show?

What disconnect presupposes failure to revitalize the economy as political success?

[Armstead]

74. I think it is a pick to tell Corporate America that Obama is on their side

Face it -- This is a complete stick in the eye to all who believe that we need to at least have a counterbalance to ruthless corporate power, and to orient the economy towards sustaining a middle class.

Why did Obama do something so blatantly pandering to the Corporate elite?

I wish I knew. But it is an utterly cynical move. There are many people who would have been far better picks -- including businesspeople who have some shred of patriotism and decency.

[eilen]

79. It's a pick for the money honey! nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. You do know many of us voted for O -

because he wasn't Hillary Flippin' Clinton, right??? Clinton made me gag. But wow, lucky me, I got Clinton (in sooo many ways) whether I wanted her/him or not. :puke:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Sheepshank]

34. I agree with the post that says the op is Stupic.

It would be fair enough if you had issues with the appointment and discussed them on their own factul merits...but you decided this meant that Obama thinks everyone is an idiot. Nah...can't go along with that extrapolation

First, if Obama thought we were idiots, he wouldn't have announced the appointment at all. And he would have shut down all access to information on Immelt.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Union Scribe]

49. lol wut?

How do you think Obama would be able to "shut down all access to information on Immelt"?

[Sheepshank]

76. So many here want Obama to pull the "dictator" role

If China can do it...I assume there is a way here too.

[trayNTP]

36. Bingo.

He said today: “Volcker out and Immelt in, because the administration now wants to emphasize ‘recovery’ and ‘jobs’ instead of ‘crisis stabilization’? Since when did any stabilization not include jobs as a top priority? What we actually have here is the disappearance from the scene of the best known and most visible critic of the excesses of the financial sector and his replacement by the sitting CEO of a company that is heavily dependent on government aid of all sorts, including diplomatic assistance to invest more in China. This is not about jobs, but political money — the White House knows that after Citizens United, it will need to raise about a billion dollars — that’s right, a billion — for its reelection campaign. That’s the context in which this and its other recent appointments need to be judged.”

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/01/21-9

[ProSense]

39. Bingo?

Corporations can't give to candidates, and there is a personal limit.

The DNC still doesn't accept PAC money per the President's lead.

The ruling affected outside groups. Is "bingo" supposed to imply that the President is going to change his approach to fundraising?

"This is not about jobs, but political money"

Yeah, because everyone knows that not delivering jobs is the best way to get re-elected, right?

[trayNTP]

46. Loopholes. Obama raised most of his '08 money from corporations. Name on checks irrelevant.

Remember hearing in 2009 from a guest on the Thom Hartmann show that 6/7th of Obama's money came from corporations.

Of course, Obama raised more corporate money than anyone else in history. He was also the #1 recipient of Wall Street money in 2008.

No, I don't expect their approach to fundraising to change. They will continue getting most of their money from filth like Goldman Sachs while using the media to purport the myth that it's coming from "small donors," from "people like you," just like they did in 2008.

[ProSense]

50. Nonsense,

he raised the most money from average people who work for corporations.

Still, if you believe this:

"Obama raised most of his '08 money from corporations."

...why would he be worried about 2012?

[trayNTP]

57. Well, that's a pretty convenient way to mask it. Besides, the only significant way it matters is

in how it translates into coverage for the candidate. The amount of money itself has less to do with who people vote for than the positive press that comes from a candidate being the choice of the industries that advertise or the companies that own the networks, which Obama was in 2008.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourceall.php?cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorallc.php?cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008

He's worried about 2012 because he wants to remain President, and for the same reason Democrats were concerned about the 2010 mid-terms. Because nothing's guaranteed. He knows who decides who becomes President, and it's not the sheeple.

[ProudDad]

59. "why would he be worried about 2012?"

because they might be able to buy another g.w.bush...

And Obama knows that...

They let Obama win because they knew he was a safe corporate spokesmodel...

They could just as easily "take him out"...

[trayNTP]

62. Exactly. Obama won't be the "shiny new toy" for unpatriotic corporations in 2012...Watch THUNE rise.

[ProSense]

66. "because they might be able to buy another g.w.bush..."

Why didn't they buy one last time?

And why would they want to if Obama is just like Bush?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[namahage]

40. You like talking to yourself? n/t

[trayNTP]

48. I talk to everyone. I am a part of that everyone. Therefore, I talk to myself also.

Seriously. I needed to add that information to this thread, but was not going to add it to the original post where it just would have gotten lost.

The "bingo" as intended to draw others' attention to that quote in that post, which mattered more at the time than the "thread" itself.

[JoePhilly]

37. Obama also hates puppies.

[trayNTP]

47. Obama is irrelevant. All "individuals" are. Obama is a creature of a corrupted system

that only yields lopsided benefits in favor of the wealthy.

The system matters, not Obama.

The media has successful turned Presidents into Weapons of Mass Distraction.

The weak-minded constantly fall into that trap.

Obama knows what should be done, but he will not try to challenge the system. The system wins, Obama is irrelevant. Bush got everything that he wanted when he was President, including the years the Democrats were in charge, therefore, Bush himself is irrelevant.

The system is corrupted. It yields what it is designed to yield.

[ProSense]

52. "Obama is irrelevant. "

From the OP: "Obama thinks you're stupid"

"Do I blame Bush, only. No, the Democrats gave him what he wanted. Bush himself is irrelevant."

The system is corrupted. It yields what it is designed to yield.

So the entire point of your OP is not "Obama thinks you're stupid," but that the entire system is corrupt and even Bush shouldn't be blamed for his actions?

[ProudDad]

60. The OP already made the point

"The system is corrupted. It yields what it is designed to yield."

That's very true...

and explains why the 98% are losing the Class War...

[trayNTP]

61. That this appointment is another example of how corrupted the system is. Obama and Bush themselves

don't matter more than the system that dictates what they do to guarantee that results remain tilted in favor of the wealthy. To focus on "the President" like they mean more than anything else is to fall victim to propaganda.

Obama thinks you're stupid, because many of you could care less about anything other than the fact that "he's" there.

[ProSense]

65. "Obama thinks you're stupid,

...because many of you could care less about anything other than the fact that 'he's' there."


Maybe you shouldn't focus so much on Obama and people who are focused on Obama? LOL!

[trayNTP]

82. I'm focused on the underlying issues. As long as Presidents are "Weapons of Mass Distraction", the

country isn't going to change for the better, because all issues become about "them" specifically, the politics of it, instead of the soundness of the policy and it's impact on the lives of the people.

Establishment media know this, which is why that's how politics is discussed. Explaining the situation does not meant I'm "focused on Obama" or the people focusing on Obama.

[Alexander]

54. So what is the Sheinhardt Wig Company's official position on this?

And what's going to happen to the Vice President of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming?

The Sheinhardt Wig Company: "Not Poisoning Rivers Since 1997."

[golfguru]

55. GE is looking like Obama's Halliburton

Lots of no competing bid required stimulus money flowing to GE.

[ProSense]

56. "Lots of no competing bid required stimulus money flowing to GE." Do

you have proof? The only people making such accusations are right wingers.

[golfguru]

67. I heard the House will investigate

any quid pro quo actions.

[ProSense]

68. Really?

Where did you hear that?

Do you think there was some wrongdoing?

[golfguru]

73. I have not seen anything concrete.

So I don't know...I don't keep records of everything I read or see or hear,
but I think I heard it on radio.

[Swamp Rat]

63. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[nod factor]

75. WIBD

What If Bush Did.

Bush appoints Murdoch to (insert influential post here)
versus
Obama appoints Immelt to head of Economic Advisory Board.

How would you have reacted?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[Armstead]

78. Yes. Or someone with their values in the business world

[Change Happens]

80. Neither has "business world" experience, we need real practical hands on

folks to make the President look credible in his effort...etc.

[KoKo]

84. Immelt is definitely one who will make Obama look good on CNBC...

BushBot/Greenspan/Summers Apologist ...Larry Kudlow has been Cheerleading for weeks about Obam's TURN TO THE RIGH and AMERICAN VALUES. He's been having an Orgasm along with the Cheerleading Business Insiders of the MSM in :applause: for Obama's new "CLINTON TURN!"

It's been really vomit producing to see the EUPHORIA amongst the Friendman/Rand Crowd on Wall Street "HAILING OBAMA...THE NEW VANQUISHER OF THE LEFT WING! ....HE HAS TURNED AND SEEN THE LIGHT...they say."

[jeanpalmer]

85. Putting the fox

in charge of the chicken coop.

[jeanpalmer]

86. " themes of Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address"

that's all it is -- a theme. Has he said that the new job creation will be in the US? I don't think so. 80% of Obama's stimulus devoted to wind eneregy went outside the US to China and Brazil, a lot of it through GE.