or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Steve Jobs gave pre-release iPad 2 to President Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs gave pre-release iPad 2 to President Obama - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I dont know that is true. Companies choose to send most of their engineering job overseas to save on development costs. Not because they have a hard time finding capable people.

Apple is different then most other companies. They have only sent manufacturing jobs overseas.
"Designed in California, Made in China".

Please I get like a zillion companies a week hitting me up for jobs. They calling me all hours of the day trying to get me work with some company they are head hunting for. I know engineers and programmers must be in short supply because everyday I have a linked in mailbox full of recruiters asking me to work for their company.
post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

We only have our own Walmart mentality to blame for this. There is a price for buying cheap.

Nay! Fresh college grads taking those jobs now.

Edit: but I'm sure you're the one who keeps going into Walmart offering to pay 2x the listed price and telling them to pay more for unskilled labor.
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

What engineer do you know that makes only $4.00 an hr

Apple does not hire people in the US to do manual labor. They hire people in the US who have brain power. Apparently, brain power is in short supply here in the US. This is why people remain out of work for extended periods of time instead of pulling themselves up by their boot straps.

Interestingly the gap is closing fast between the US and China from Engineering costs point of. A typical HW or SW engineer in China makes around $30-40k/year now. This was only $20k around 5 years ago. The GDP grown rate in China is 10%. Compared to the US rate of 2-3%. At this rate, China salaries double ever 10 years. I have already seen companies move engineering out of China and into other places around the world like eastern europe because China is getting too expensive.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Interestingly the gap is closing fast between the US and China from Engineering costs point of. A typical HW or SW engineer in China makes around $30-40k/year now. This was only $20k around 5 years ago. The GDP grown rate in China is 10%. Compared to the US rate of 2-3%. At this rate, China salaries double ever 10 years. I have already seen companies move engineering out of China and into other places around the world like eastern europe because China is getting too expensive.

Doubled from what? Who's talking Engineering but you? GDP growth when the average annual salary is well below the U.S poverty level.

Perhaps that's part of the plan.
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Engineered in California. Says so right on the box.

Manufactured in China. Average salary in Shanghai is what? $10K a year? Reckon they are doing 40 hour weeks?

The post I replied to didn't say Engineering jobs but I reckon there are a few Engineering jobs skewing that Shanghai average.

No there is a big gap between China Engineering jobs and China manufacturing jobs. In manufacturing you are luck to make $6k/year (~$3/hr). Engineers get about 5-8 times this much.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

No there is a big gap between China Engineering jobs and China manufacturing jobs. In manufacturing you are luck to make $6k/year (~$3/hr). Engineers get about 5-8 times this much.

They should level that. To each according to his need. It's not fair.
post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Nay! Fresh college grads taking those jobs now.

Edit: but I'm sure you're the one who keeps going into Walmart offering to pay 2x the listed price and telling them to pay more for unskilled labor.

Read my statement again carefully. Do you see anything hypocritical there?
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #48 of 85
um. ok.
post #49 of 85

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

[...] I don't believe that any public officials should be allowed to receive gifts or favors from any company, as it is highly improper, it's a conflict of interests and it verges on bribery.

It's actually illegal over some small dollar value... although since the iPad2 hadn't been released yet, I guess the value is fairly arbitrary. In any case, I assume they just consider it a gift to the US gov, which is legal...
post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

What engineer do you know that makes only $4.00 an hr

Apple does not hire people in the US to do manual labor. They hire people in the US who have brain power. Apparently, brain power is in short supply here in the US. This is why people remain out of work for extended periods of time instead of pulling themselves up by their boot straps.


Have you seen any evidence of any significant shortages in engineering? Usually even if there is a stated shortage, it means there isn't a surplus and that said workers are actually able to command a reasonable wage for their time.
post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Read my statement again carefully. Do you see anything hypocritical there?

I do. Paying more than something is worth is called a gift - not an economic system.
post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Have you seen any evidence of any significant shortages in engineering? Usually even if there is a stated shortage, it means there isn't a surplus and that said workers are actually able to command a reasonable wage for their time.

Just to be clear.. There are different different levels within engineering which have shortages and other which have surplus. Most of the entry level/junior engineers are in surplus because kids are graduating out of school, yet entry level/junior level engineering jobs are being sent overseas. However, US corporations like to keep their senior level and architecture level position in the US. Obviously there are less engineers at the top of the pyramid as seniority goes up.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by irobot2004 View Post

It's actually illegal over some small dollar value... although since the iPad2 hadn't been released yet, I guess the value is fairly arbitrary. In any case, I assume they just consider it a gift to the US gov, which is legal...

U.S. Constitution says it's naughty when it's a foriegn government king type. Frankly, if a few days advance and a few hundred bones buys a president, I'm checking out for good. Zombie Invasion Response Vehicle going into high gear.
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

I do. Paying more than something is worth is called a gift - not an economic system.

please quote what I said and show me where I say that I pay more then what something is worth. I think you misread what I typed.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

yeah.. to be fair you would need a government put restrictions onto the companies to make it more fair. However, I think many people think the government should stay out of businesses and let the market decide. I think you would be for this concept. no?

Pure capitalism = bad. Free market = better. U.S. peeps lack the patience to let a free market work and I think the wireless market is a microcosm. They keep trying to tweak and tamper. All sides (I wont say both because it's naive to think it's two) have their special interests. They just call them loopholes when it's election convenient.
post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Just to be clear.. There are different different levels within engineering which have shortages and other which have surplus. Most of the entry level/junior engineers are in surplus because kids are graduating out of school, yet entry level/junior level engineering jobs are being sent overseas. However, US corporations like to keep their senior level and architecture level position in the US. Obviously there are less engineers at the top of the pyramid as seniority goes up.

There isn't even enough entry level engineers and programmers. I know companies that have been hiring for months and can't seem to get the positions filled in the US and yet I see people complain they can't find work. Well you have to tailor your skill set to the available jobs. You don't even need a college degree to get the jobs. You just need to be able to show you can do the work.
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Pure capitalism = bad. Free market = better. U.S. peeps lack the patience to let a free market work and I think the wireless market is a microcosm. They keep trying to tweak and tamper. All sides (I wont say both because it's naive to think it's two) have their special interests. They just call them loopholes when it's election convenient.

Pure capitalism is the freest market. I some what agree with your overall sentiment in this post but...government being hands off is free market. Government regulation in any way is anti free market no matter how you spin it. You need a balance of business and government involvement to keep the economy growing. China has struck that balance and it's a communist country.
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Pure capitalism = bad. Free market = better.

excuse my ignorance here. I dont grasp the difference between Pure Capitalism and Free Market.

(pure capitalism) bad--> (free market? how is this diff then pure cap) better-> (what goes here??) great.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Pure capitalism is the freest market. I some what agree with your overall sentiment in this post but...government being hands off is free market. Government regulation in any way is anti free market no matter how you spin it. You need a balance of business and government involvement to keep the economy growing.

AdonismSMU is right. What China has is in some ways more free market/capitalistic then what the US has. Its State Capitalism. Dont confuse this with democracy which has nothing to do with the market economy.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

excuse my ignorance here. I dont grasp the difference between Pure Capitalism and Free Market.

(pure capitalism) bad--> (free market? how is this diff then pure cap) better-> (what goes here??) great.

Pure capitalism let's one entity beat the shit out of another using a 3rd and unrelated market, i.e. Microsoft forcing vendors to prefer their IE browser to Netscape because they have sway in a completely unrelated market. Free Market lets things in the same Market compete. IMHO MS had long since been leveraging their desktop apps to squeeze OS cometitors out of the market but no one paid attention until it was too late and MS had a foothold. They the expanded that into the Server OS market. Shame on the Justice dept.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Pure capitalism is the freest market. I some what agree with your overall sentiment in this post but...government being hands off is free market. Government regulation in any way is anti free market no matter how you spin it. You need a balance of business and government involvement to keep the economy growing. China has struck that balance and it's a communist country.

Pure Capitalism requires a self-correcting mechanism [regulations evenly leveled] and oligopolies and conglomerations by eating up the competition would be illegal.

Otherwise, Pure Capitalism reverts to a Monopoly.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Pure Capitalism requires a self-correcting mechanism [regulations evenly leveled] and oligopolies and conglomerations by eating up the competition would be illegal.

Otherwise, Pure Capitalism reverts to a Monopoly.

Or central "management". The road to serfdom.

You summed it up well.
post #64 of 85
Technically, POTUS already have early access to unreleased Apple products (if POTUS request it) when the following occurs

(1) When Apple submit its product to FCC for certification, I am sure POTUS will get his/her hands on unreleased Apple product FAST if he/she choose to ring up FCC Chairman

(2) When Apple plan to ship ANYthing containing encryption (especially outside of US), it will be subject to US intelligence agencies' "very close attention" stealthy

One side note, regardless your political believe, one should at least try to respect POTUS. It is an extremely tough and dangerous "job", I assume.

my 2 cents...
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

The funny thing is that they would hire more people here in the US if only the citizens of the US were educated and qualified for the positions they would be offering them.

You know... I think in some ways you have a very good point about the importance of education. I think many of our issues in this country would be solved if people were actually better educated and this belief was instilled in our culture. If we had this, I think our democracy and economy would have a better chance of succeeding. Too few people vote. Those that do vote, don't invest enough in their education to make good decisions. Being mislead by politicians that take advantage of the fact that most people don't have the education to understand the way the economics work. Sometimes, I think it is on purpose that our government spends so little on public education. The most important people in our society, our teachers, are not respected by society as a whole and are compensated very little in return.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

You know... I think in some ways you have a very good point about the importance of education. I think many of our issues in this country would be solved if people were actually better educated and this belief was instilled in our culture. If we had this, I think our democracy and economy would have a better chance of succeeding. Too few people vote. Those that do vote, don't invest enough in their education to make good decisions. Being mislead by politicians that take advantage of the fact that most people don't have the education to understand the way the economics work. Sometimes, I think it is on purpose that our government spends so little on public education. The most important people in our society, our teachers, are not respected by society as a whole and are compensated very little in return.

+1.
Well said!!
post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

Speaking of direction, Obama will have his choice from a litany of iPad map apps to help find his way back to Chicago on January 20, 2012.

LOL! Typical, low info Obama hater [psst... the election is in late 2012 and Obama gets SWORN BACK IN in 2013. [watch dumb FUX "News" much? Pretty graphics, NO intelligence = "We Distort. You Confide." Yeah, I thought so].

The a$$-kicking that McCain [probably would be dead by now from the pressure of having to try and think - and not just brain dead as he has been for the past 5 years]/Palin [would've been the one to kill McCain being the bloodsucker that she is as well as probably nearly killed most of the "REAL" American majority population who are NOT Rebublican] got in '08 will be small potatoes compared to the rout that Obama '12 is going to give whatever nut d'jour the domestic vast minority tearrorist's pick this time around!

RonARand Paul?... pfff!!!

Got my popcorn in hand and ready to watch the circular firing squad that is the post '08 Repugnant Partea all get ready to do their best to shoot themselves in their own footsies... and onesies, being the babies that they are.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacQuest View Post

Got my popcorn in hand and ready to watch the circular firing squad that is the post '08 Repugnant Partea all get ready to do their best to shoot themselves in their own footsies... and onesies, being the babies that they are.

As we get out the popcorn for some entertainment, our economy and democracy sinks to a new level. Sorry, I don't find so much entertainment in this. Our electoral process is broken and in despair. Society is being mislead by politicians. We are their pawns. This has turned into a WWF/WWE contest, which has nothing to do with reality.
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Excellent response to the madness on this thread.
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCupertinoMDN View Post

Technically, POTUS already have early access to unreleased Apple products (if POTUS request it) when the following occurs

(1) When Apple submit its product to FCC for certification, I am sure POTUS will get his/her hands on unreleased Apple product FAST if he/she choose to ring up FCC Chairman

(2) When Apple plan to ship ANYthing containing encryption (especially outside of US), it will be subject to US intelligence agencies' "very close attention" stealthy

One side note, regardless your political believe, one should at least try to respect POTUS. It is an extremely tough and dangerous "job", I assume.

my 2 cents...

Well said.

I realize it is a chicken and egg situation, but the infantile, polarized attitudes prevalent in US society these days and demonstrated so well in blogs such as this is certainly reflected in our Congress' lack of ability to conduct the country's business.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Well considering the fact that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I would bet money that he knows that document inside and out...

Unlike most - if not all - of the anti-Obama posters on here.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

Apple has been busy making a lot of enemies lately and giving products early to the President can be construed as bribery. Some places I have worked I would have not even been allowed to accept such gifts.

If the iPad is left at the White House when Obama leaves office (please, no politics here), then it is a gift to the Office of the President and not a personal one, and does not entail personal enrichment, or bribery.

Anytime the President goes to WestBumistan or wherever on a state visit, he's presented with a rare and expensive gift. It's kind of standard protocol. Then he has to hand it over, register it, and leave it behind when he leaves office. Why is this any different?
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

I wish Jobs activated it first and penned a secret letter via Notes on how to be a leader. Obummer could've used the advice.

Jealous?
post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaolinDave View Post

What would have been really cool is if they preloaded a copy of the constitution, then maybe he'd actually read it.

Like you've got it memorized. You do know the man spent his time in an Ivy league school studying the constitution? Then again, you probably didn't know that. He doesn't have a "Heroes of the WWE" trading card, where you get all your facts. How's your pursuit of "Heroes of NASCAR" collectable chicken buckets from KFC coming along, got 'em all yet? I betchya do.
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

Well considering the fact that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I would bet money that he knows that document inside and out...

Stop it, basic reason has no place in this.
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I think that it's a bad idea to give anybody highly secretive Apple products before they're launched, and that includes the POTUS. I don't believe that any public officials should be allowed to receive gifts or favors from any company, as it is highly improper, it's a conflict of interests and it verges on bribery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

Apple has been busy making a lot of enemies lately and giving products early to the President can be construed as bribery. Some places I have worked I would have not even been allowed to accept such gifts.

Really? Do you think a U.S. President of any party is really going to show Apple favoritism because he/she received a $500 electronic device? A large campaign contribution...maybe. Would you rather the POTUS purchased such a device with taxpayer money? The White House has received such gifts for decades or more. I seem to remember that back in the 1960s, Avery Fisher donated a state of the art sound system. Was that a bribe too?

And why do I feel like you probably support the idea that companies are people and should be able to donate as much money as they like to political campaigns. The same people who don't have a problem with our current criminal system of campaign finance and don't have a problem with paid lobbyists seem to have a problem with Obama receiving a $500 retail gift.

What I am surprised at is that Jobs gave it to the President in advance of release. Apple is so paranoid about secrecy you'd think that Jobs would not have done this until after release. I wonder if he made the POTUS sign a non-disclosure and screw the device to the Oval Office desk.
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

I suppose it simply not possible that 2012 could have been a typo... I suppose that you are more of an MSNBC fan for your news, and I'm guessing that you seem to have your head in the sand concerning the polling on independents and young voters. Obama is losing huge portions of these two key groups that put him in the White House. I'm not saying that the Republicans have 2012 (when the election happens) sown up, but you are smoking some powerful stuff if you think that Obama has an easy road to re-election.

I have to say that I do like the "circular firing squad" line however misplaced it might be. I do always find it odd though that the left claims compassion and then spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them.

Yes, it's true that Obama has been losing support on the left, but that's because he's moved so far to the right and seems to completely cave on every fight with the Republicans. I agree that his road to re-election will be tough. Obama's problem is that many will vote for anyone who is "not-Obama" (or sit out the election) because they're disappointed in his performance, even though whoever is "not-Obama" will support policies they disagree with even more. But voters have never been either well-informed about the issues or logical, which is why simple slogans and tags are so successful in winning elections and the Republicans are much better at this than the Democrats.

I think Obama will pull out a win if the Republicans run an ultra-conservative and he'll lose if the Republicans run Romney or Christie, although much will depend upon where jobs and the economy are between now and November of 2012. IMO, no President, conservative or liberal, is really going to be able to do anything about jobs. Big companies have found they can make do with far less and there isn't enough demand (Apple perhaps excepted) for them to hire more. What I thought Obama could have done was use the bully pulpit of the presidency to guilt companies into hiring, but we live in a society where there is so little respect for our leaders that most CEOs wouldn't care (although I still think if the POTUS of either party pulls you into the White House and asks you to hire for the sake of the country, you'd be hard pressed not to do it.)

I do disagree with your comment that the left "spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them". One night of viewing, let's say Fox vs. MSNBC or a Tea Party demonstration vs. the Wall Street protestors (even though both claim to hate the banks and investment firms and actually have a lot in common) should put that to rest. Look at the Republican debate where the audience applauded the fact that Texas has put more prisoners to death than any other state, booed a mention of a gay soldier and supported the idea that a young man without health insurance should be left to die. IMO, those were all pretty vile responses. You wouldn't hear anything like that from the mainstream left. I don't see anything on the left that compares to the birther and "death panel" claims on the right except for the extreme left morons who think that 9/11 was an inside job, although there are probably extreme conservatives who think the same way.
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I think that it's a bad idea to give anybody highly secretive Apple products before they're launched, and that includes the POTUS. I don't believe that any public officials should be allowed to receive gifts or favors from any company, as it is highly improper, it's a conflict of interests and it verges on bribery.

It didn't say that SJ "gifted" it to him.

How do we know that Obama didn't pay for it and Steve brought him what he paid for?
Maybe the govt bought it and it is a tool the Prez needs to do his job?
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Surprised that with all that advance knowledge, Obama couldn't come up with an idea to tax it...

You do know that in spite of the hype, Federal income taxes are at the lowest they've been in over 30 years, right?

The highest marginal rate during the Nixon administration was 70%. During the Reagan administration it was 50%. It's now 35%. That's one of the primary reasons we're broke. (That and the fact that we're fighting two wars and the Bush administration's Medicare prescription benefit, although Democrats who now claim to have been against that are also hypocrites.)

Since most Republicans and liberal haters seem to love Ronald Reagan so much, maybe we should return to the tax rates that we had during his presidency.

Now having said all that, State taxes and real-estate taxes have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. Why? Because as tax receipts have declined at the federal level, the feds have been providing less funding to the states and the states, in turn, have been providing less funding to the localities. That's why it's such a joke when a Senate or House member up for re-election claims, "I voted against increased taxes". Maybe they did, but they just pushed the problem down the line to the localities.
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Yes, it's true that Obama has been losing support on the left, but that's because he's moved so far to the right and seems to completely cave on every fight with the Republicans. I agree that his road to re-election will be tough. Obama's problem is that many will vote for anyone who is "not-Obama" (or sit out the election) because they're disappointed in his performance, even though whoever is "not-Obama" will support policies they disagree with even more. But voters have never been either well-informed about the issues or logical, which is why simple slogans and tags are so successful in winning elections and the Republicans are much better at this than the Democrats.

I think Obama will pull out a win if the Republicans run an ultra-conservative and he'll lose if the Republicans run Romney or Christie, although much will depend upon where jobs and the economy are between now and November of 2012. IMO, no President, conservative or liberal, is really going to be able to do anything about jobs. Big companies have found they can make do with far less and there isn't enough demand (Apple perhaps excepted) for them to hire more. What I thought Obama could have done was use the bully pulpit of the presidency to guilt companies into hiring, but we live in a society where there is so little respect for our leaders that most CEOs wouldn't care (although I still think if the POTUS of either party pulls you into the White House and asks you to hire for the sake of the country, you'd be hard pressed not to do it.)

I do disagree with your comment that the left "spouts such hatred and vile comments about anyone who disagrees with them". One night of viewing, let's say Fox vs. MSNBC or a Tea Party demonstration vs. the Wall Street protestors (even though both claim to hate the banks and investment firms and actually have a lot in common) should put that to rest. Look at the Republican debate where the audience applauded the fact that Texas has put more prisoners to death than any other state, booed a mention of a gay soldier and supported the idea that a young man without health insurance should be left to die. IMO, those were all pretty vile responses. You wouldn't hear anything like that from the mainstream left. I don't see anything on the left that compares to the birther and "death panel" claims on the right except for the extreme left morons who think that 9/11 was an inside job, although there are probably extreme conservatives who think the same way.

I have agreements and disagreements with your post above. First of all, I think it's a great post in that it's respectful and that is much appreciated. I concur that there is a great deal of dislike for Wall Street on both sides of the political spectrum and something needs to be done, but I'm not going to pretend to understand the financial sector well enough to make any suggestions. I also agree that Obama is going to have to overcome a lot of "anyone but Obama" voters. We are also in agreement on the level of engagement of the majority of voters however I would have to say the Democrats are better with the slogans than Republicans as in, "Yes we can."

I think you are wrong on a President having an impact on job creation. Specifically regulations on businesses have a huge impact on employers. I'm most concerned with these unelected agencies writing regulations with relatively little oversight. For instance the NLRB issue with Boeing opening it's new 787 plant in S. Carolina. I'm not saying business should be unregulated, but the regulations need to be well thought out and not political pay back to certain groups. Additionally, businesses operate on what's good for business and not on some patriotic or ideologically motivated scheme, just look at Solyndra.

I don't think members of the Congressional Black Caucus who accuse the Tea Party of wanting to "see blacks hanging from trees", or James Hoffa calling the Tea Party "sons of bitches", or Maxine Waters saying "the Tea Party can go to hell" are what you might call shining examples of a tolerant left. These aren't small time left wing crackpots like Rosanne Barr saying something like Wall Street bankers worth more than $100 million should be beheaded. These are congressmen/women and leaders on the left. As to the gay soldier getting booed, it was like 2 people out of 5000 and the booing didn't start when he announced he was gay but after he phrased his question. I suppose the booers may have been politely waiting for him to finish the question before booing his sexuality, but really... I honestly don't know anything about the guy being left to die.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Steve Jobs gave pre-release iPad 2 to President Obama