If this is good for the broader market businesses shouldn't need a government law or White House summit to implement it. The optics of this to me is Apple taking orders from the Obama administration. IMO those aren't good optics.
It's not a law, it's completely voluntary and it's harmless to Apple. There's nothing wrong with a White House summit to "encourage" it. It's the White House getting American companies involved and saying, "look, we have this problem - can you help these smaller companies out?" It's not "taking orders" from the Obama administration - industry has certainly ignored and criticized the administration many times - especially the banks and other beneficiaries of the bailouts even though it was this (and the prior) administration who got them the bailouts.
In fact, my criticism of Obama is that he hasn't used the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency often enough to either explain his positions or to encourage Americans to push their legislators to vote for certain laws/programs. Obama was a great communicator during his campaigns but a lousy communicator during the actual Presidency.
I think, for example, that Obama should have gotten on TV and taken the position that companies need to hire more American workers to keep the country strong. Or even without legislation, to raise pay beyond the current Federal minimum wage. Etc.
While it was a different time and with only a maximum of 7 TV channels in each city, it was easier to get eyes, LBJ got Civil Rights legislation passed because he got on TV and explained to the American people why it was necessary, especially after Selma and after the Klan planted a bomb in the church and young girls were killed.
My view isn't that the problem is that Government gives orders to Business. It's that Business, via lobbyists and the associated legislation that gets passed (or not passed), essentially gives orders to the Government.
If this is good for the broader market businesses shouldn't need a government law or White House summit to implement it. The optics of this to me is Apple taking orders from the Obama administration. IMO those aren't good optics.
You guys making this point sound insane to me, but I guess I am in the minority. I thought small business was the backbone of the economy. I though small business created 70(?)% of all new jobs. I thought we wanted less people on government handouts. It reads like we don't like this because of who suggested it rather than basing it on the its merits. Here is something that costs nothing and provides benefit. It's not mandatory - just an idea.
I have done services including consulting and programing for about 20 years. Originally their standard terms were paying 30 days after the invoice, but if your contact at Apple marked the invoice rush you got paid in 10 days.
That was great for small biz. However, around 2000 they changed so that everyone was paid 45 days after the invoice was issued, no exceptions. In addition to that, because they use SAP for an approval process on the invoice, sometimes invoices were not approved to be paid because someone at Apple forgot to check a box or get some other approval of a manager.
Even worse you could not check on if all the approvals were obtained and the invoice was in line to be paid until it was past due. Apple Accounts Payable will not talk to you unless your invoice is past due.
We did a programming project that had a midpoint review for the project in order to get paid half of the cost and did not receive the midpoint review payment until 2 weeks after the entire project was complete.
They are not a fun company to do business with. Many unnecessary rules. You have to go through a yearly procurement review and named them as additional insured on your auto insurance. Why?
My company does about $3 million a year in consulting and about $100,000 with Apple and they are by far the biggest pain to do business with. If it wasn't for my friends there I would cease to do business with them. I sincerely hope this SupplierPay helps.
It reads like you two want to Apple to do what John Boehner does and oppose anything Obama says regardless of its merit.
I personally pay no attention to John Boehner. It's aligning Apple too closely with an unpopular president that I take issue. If Bush was still president, would it be wise for Apple to align with him?
Apple is a company that serves customers regardless of their beliefs. Politics is a cesspool that should be avoided by companies, except if it is core to their operations.
Obama was a great communicator during his campaigns but a lousy communicator during the actual Presidency.
I totally disagree. He was always a stuttering person who didn't display much confidence, and masses of people were fooled by the teleprompting reading charlatan. There were always those who saw right through him. And many of those poor people who placed any faith in the mountain of lies that came out of his mouth, are surely regretting their decision today.
I personally pay no attention to John Boehner. It's aligning itself too closely with an unpopular president that I take issue. If Bush was still president, would it be wise for Apple to align with him?
If it was an ethical decision with clear benefits then popularity shouldn't be a concern.
PS: This is sounding like those teen movies where the popular boy/girl hangs out with the unpopular girl/boy and then gets shunned by her/his peers as a result. Is that the message we want express?
I totally disagree. He was always a stuttering person who didn't display much confidence, and masses of people were fooled by the teleprompting reading charlatan. There were always those who saw right through him. And many of those poor people who placed any faith in the mountain of lies that came out of his mouth, are surely regretting their decision today.
I was never a supporter because I'm not a Democrat, but are there any Democrats left who actually believe a word this president says? I'm amazed any are left who defend the man.
If it was an ethical decision with clear benefits then popularity shouldn't be a concern.
PS: This is sounding like those teen movies where the popular boy/girl hangs out with the unpopular girl/boy and then gets shunned by her peers as a result. Is that the message we want express?
I think it's a bit more serious than schoolyard politics. Obama, even more so than Bush, has been called one of the most egregious offenders when it comes to our nation's history of presidents who have actively undermined the Constitution. I'd not be so fast to cuddle up with him. Fairly or unfairly, Obama has come to symbolize what is bad about big government and he also has a poor reputation overseas.
Do you think China and Europe will be more positive or less positive about Apple if they are seen as a lapdog for the biggest spying organization in the world (aka our government)?
I was never a supporter because I'm not a Democrat, but are there any Democrats left who actually believe a word this president says? I'm amazed any are left who defend the man.
Some have turned against him, but there will always be those who will stick it out until the end, no matter what. In a bunker in Berlin, with the Soviets mere blocks away, there were still some crazy people left who supported their dear leader until the very end.
It reads like you two want to Apple to do what John Boehner does and oppose anything Obama says regardless of its merit.
No. If Apple's not already doing this and it's a good idea than just implement it. No need to send someone to Washington to be a prop for the Government. And I'd say this regardless of which party controlled the White House.
You guys making this point sound insane to me, but I guess I am in the minority. I thought small business was the backbone of the economy. I though small business created 70(?)% of all new jobs. I thought we wanted less people on government handouts. It reads like we don't like this because of who suggested it rather than basing it on the its merits. Here is something that costs nothing and provides benefit. It's not mandatory - just an idea.
Nope. If it's a good idea companies should just do it. No need for a meeting or a summit which is basically just a photo op for the White House.
I totally disagree. He was always a stuttering person who didn't display much confidence, and masses of people were fooled by the teleprompting reading charlatan. There were always those who saw right through him. And many of those poor people who placed any faith in the mountain of lies that came out of his mouth, are surely regretting their decision today.
Yes, it's too bad Obama isn't as good a communicator as George W. Bush. Bush never mangled words or sentences or thoughts. And there hasn't been a President in half a century who didn't use a teleprompter. Get real.
I think Obama was weak in some ways, but it's amazing he accomplished anything at all considering that from Day 1 of his presidency, Republicans declared that their mission was to see him fail.
And if you want to count the lies, I think Republicans easily win that race.
Ah the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the faux news watchers. Won't consider an idea on its merits. It's always the politics.
Since compliance is voluntary, this "program" is largely irrelevant anyway. It's all about appearances.
Also, not everyone who is disgusted or disappointed with this president is a Fox News follower or identifies with the Tea Party. I don't watch Faux News.
Even Obama's own Washington supporters have distanced themselves. They want to get re elected!
Yes, it's too bad Obama isn't as good a communicator as George W. Bush. Bush never mangled words or sentences or thoughts. And there hasn't been a President in half a century who didn't use a teleprompter. Get real.
I think Obama was weak in some ways, but it's amazing he accomplished anything at all considering that from Day 1 of his presidency, Republicans declared that their mission was to see him fail.
And if you want to count the lies, I think Republicans easily win that race.
Is it possible for one to agree that Bush was a lousy president and also acknowledge that Obama is as bad, if not worse?
Comments
If this is good for the broader market businesses shouldn't need a government law or White House summit to implement it. The optics of this to me is Apple taking orders from the Obama administration. IMO those aren't good optics.
It's not a law, it's completely voluntary and it's harmless to Apple. There's nothing wrong with a White House summit to "encourage" it. It's the White House getting American companies involved and saying, "look, we have this problem - can you help these smaller companies out?" It's not "taking orders" from the Obama administration - industry has certainly ignored and criticized the administration many times - especially the banks and other beneficiaries of the bailouts even though it was this (and the prior) administration who got them the bailouts.
In fact, my criticism of Obama is that he hasn't used the 'bully pulpit' of the Presidency often enough to either explain his positions or to encourage Americans to push their legislators to vote for certain laws/programs. Obama was a great communicator during his campaigns but a lousy communicator during the actual Presidency.
I think, for example, that Obama should have gotten on TV and taken the position that companies need to hire more American workers to keep the country strong. Or even without legislation, to raise pay beyond the current Federal minimum wage. Etc.
While it was a different time and with only a maximum of 7 TV channels in each city, it was easier to get eyes, LBJ got Civil Rights legislation passed because he got on TV and explained to the American people why it was necessary, especially after Selma and after the Klan planted a bomb in the church and young girls were killed.
My view isn't that the problem is that Government gives orders to Business. It's that Business, via lobbyists and the associated legislation that gets passed (or not passed), essentially gives orders to the Government.
You guys making this point sound insane to me, but I guess I am in the minority. I thought small business was the backbone of the economy. I though small business created 70(?)% of all new jobs. I thought we wanted less people on government handouts. It reads like we don't like this because of who suggested it rather than basing it on the its merits. Here is something that costs nothing and provides benefit. It's not mandatory - just an idea.
I have done services including consulting and programing for about 20 years. Originally their standard terms were paying 30 days after the invoice, but if your contact at Apple marked the invoice rush you got paid in 10 days.
That was great for small biz. However, around 2000 they changed so that everyone was paid 45 days after the invoice was issued, no exceptions. In addition to that, because they use SAP for an approval process on the invoice, sometimes invoices were not approved to be paid because someone at Apple forgot to check a box or get some other approval of a manager.
Even worse you could not check on if all the approvals were obtained and the invoice was in line to be paid until it was past due. Apple Accounts Payable will not talk to you unless your invoice is past due.
We did a programming project that had a midpoint review for the project in order to get paid half of the cost and did not receive the midpoint review payment until 2 weeks after the entire project was complete.
They are not a fun company to do business with. Many unnecessary rules. You have to go through a yearly procurement review and named them as additional insured on your auto insurance. Why?
My company does about $3 million a year in consulting and about $100,000 with Apple and they are by far the biggest pain to do business with. If it wasn't for my friends there I would cease to do business with them. I sincerely hope this SupplierPay helps.
I personally pay no attention to John Boehner. It's aligning Apple too closely with an unpopular president that I take issue. If Bush was still president, would it be wise for Apple to align with him?
Apple is a company that serves customers regardless of their beliefs. Politics is a cesspool that should be avoided by companies, except if it is core to their operations.
Obama was a great communicator during his campaigns but a lousy communicator during the actual Presidency.
I totally disagree. He was always a stuttering person who didn't display much confidence, and masses of people were fooled by the teleprompting reading charlatan. There were always those who saw right through him. And many of those poor people who placed any faith in the mountain of lies that came out of his mouth, are surely regretting their decision today.
I personally pay no attention to John Boehner.
He is also somebody who is a joke. It seems like he's constantly crying. What's his problem?
Maybe he should move down to Brazil or something, because it seems like they like to cry a lot too. How pathetic.
If it was an ethical decision with clear benefits then popularity shouldn't be a concern.
PS: This is sounding like those teen movies where the popular boy/girl hangs out with the unpopular girl/boy and then gets shunned by her/his peers as a result. Is that the message we want express?
I was never a supporter because I'm not a Democrat, but are there any Democrats left who actually believe a word this president says? I'm amazed any are left who defend the man.
I think it's a bit more serious than schoolyard politics. Obama, even more so than Bush, has been called one of the most egregious offenders when it comes to our nation's history of presidents who have actively undermined the Constitution. I'd not be so fast to cuddle up with him. Fairly or unfairly, Obama has come to symbolize what is bad about big government and he also has a poor reputation overseas.
Do you think China and Europe will be more positive or less positive about Apple if they are seen as a lapdog for the biggest spying organization in the world (aka our government)?
I was never a supporter because I'm not a Democrat, but are there any Democrats left who actually believe a word this president says? I'm amazed any are left who defend the man.
Some have turned against him, but there will always be those who will stick it out until the end, no matter what. In a bunker in Berlin, with the Soviets mere blocks away, there were still some crazy people left who supported their dear leader until the very end.
I totally disagree. He was always a stuttering person who didn't display much confidence, and masses of people were fooled by the teleprompting reading charlatan. There were always those who saw right through him. And many of those poor people who placed any faith in the mountain of lies that came out of his mouth, are surely regretting their decision today.
Yes, it's too bad Obama isn't as good a communicator as George W. Bush. Bush never mangled words or sentences or thoughts. And there hasn't been a President in half a century who didn't use a teleprompter. Get real.
I think Obama was weak in some ways, but it's amazing he accomplished anything at all considering that from Day 1 of his presidency, Republicans declared that their mission was to see him fail.
And if you want to count the lies, I think Republicans easily win that race.
Since compliance is voluntary, this "program" is largely irrelevant anyway. It's all about appearances.
Also, not everyone who is disgusted or disappointed with this president is a Fox News follower or identifies with the Tea Party. I don't watch Faux News.
Even Obama's own Washington supporters have distanced themselves. They want to get re elected!
Is it possible for one to agree that Bush was a lousy president and also acknowledge that Obama is as bad, if not worse?
Is it possible for one to agree that Bush was a lousy president and also acknowledge that Obama is as bad, if not worse?
Much worse. The worst since WWII, according to recent polls.
Only just, and the incumbent will always carry a current bias for those kinds of questions, whether good or bad.
Obama's average approval rating still seem to be tracking above Bush's at exit.