President Obama points to Steve Jobs' ingenuity in State of the Union address
U.S. President Barack Obama mentioned late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs as an example of America's best and brightest during the State of the Union address on Tuesday, which was attended by Jobs' widow Laurene Powell Jobs.
President Obama referred to the former Apple CEO during the early portion of his hour-long speech, and gave a knowing glance to Powell Jobs as he said the following:
Powell Jobs was seated almost directly behind First Lady Michelle Obama in the balcony box of the U.S. Capitol's House of Representatives chamber during the President's annual address to the nation.
Laurene Powell Jobs during the 2012 State of the Union address | Source: WhiteHouse.gov
In context, President Obama mentioned Jobs as part of the country's education and ways to jump-start the economy, and went on to declare that U.S. lawmakers need to come to a consensus on immigration reform to stop allowing potential workers from leaving the country.
Earlier reports noted that Powell Jobs had been personally invited to attend the yearly address as a guest of the First Lady. She was joined other official guests including Debbie Bosanek, secretary to billionaire stock guru Warren Buffett and symbol of President Obama's tax reform plan, Astronaut and husband of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Captain Mark Kelly, USN, Ret. and Admiral William McRaven, USN who is credited for organizing and executing the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden.
Comments
Again, on pins and needles here.
Why, what happened? Did they just nationalize all tech companies? LOL
Why, what happened? Did they just nationalize all tech companies? LOL
There's a colon in the first post. He said SOMETHING, we just don't know what yet.
And yes, I could just read the real article page. But I never do that.
I hesitate to mention that Steve once told Obama that he was headed for a "one term presidency", and the reasons that might happen are still in play. I personally think he's been one of the worst presidents we've had... right up there with Bush.
Anyone who was given leftovers from Bush's crap would be second worst president! Unfortunately Iraq war was morally right, but put financial heart attack on US economy.
Anyone who was given leftovers from Bush's crap would be second worst president!
So he was the second worst president by default and with his own crap, he managed to jump far to the end of the list...
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
I hesitate to mention that Steve once told Obama that he was headed for a "one term presidency", and the reasons that might happen are still in play. I personally think he's been one of the worst presidents we've had... right up there with Bush.
Obama's only term is Bush's 3rd term.
That means women should earn equal pay for equal work.
However, if you earn more, you should pay a higher percentage in taxes!
Too bad we can't get people like Steve Jobs in in government ... Steve would do the following:
1. Immediately eliminate a few big departments which do mostly nothing except employ government employees and pay their benefits, followed by eliminating most all of the waste.
2. Implement technology across the entire government that actually works making the government 40% more efficient.
Just how long are we going to borrow $1 of every $3 spent and how long are we going to keep spending like there is no tomorrow?
Steve would never have been able to stand being in a political position. He ran Apple like a benign dictatorship, and we're all the beneficiaries of that, but that doesn't work out too well in government.
I hesitate to mention that Steve once told Obama that he was headed for a "one term presidency", and the reasons that might happen are still in play. I personally think he's been one of the worst presidents we've had... right up there with Bush.
Personally, I think your comparison speaks volumes to your lack of differentiating between parties, but then again this isn't a damn Political Forum or it could get ugly, real fast.
It's bad enough with the crap of Android vs. Apple.
Steve would never have been able to stand being in a political position. He ran Apple like a benign dictatorship, and we're all the beneficiaries of that, but that doesn't work out too well in government.
You don't know what the frack you're talking about. The man was the least hands on boss I ever knew when you knew what the hell you were doing.
Steve was a not a Republican or Independent. He also couldn't stomach the GOP and if you noticed tonight the President took their private conversations forward and raise them an order of magnitude, two-fold.
Steve wanted 30,000 the President targeted 2 million.
Steve had no aspirations to be a Politician because he knew he could never convince a majority of folks he despised to see his vision. When you own a corporation you can clean house opposition and he did at Apple.
Apple and especially NeXT alumni are fiercely loyal to Steve because he earned the respect, and it sure as hell wasn't because he walked around cracking the whip.
Steve would never have been able to stand being in a political position. He ran Apple like a benign dictatorship, and we're all the beneficiaries of that, but that doesn't work out too well in government.
There is a reason CEOs don't necessarily make the best presidents. CEOs like to have absolute power. Presidents of the United States don't. There is no one in Apple who had the power that Mitch McConnell, or john Boehner have in Congress. Even when the President and the majority leaders in Congress are of the same party there is tension in our political system. That just doesn't happen in a big company.
However, if you earn more, you should pay a higher percentage in taxes!
I'm not sure what the logic is in it having to be even higher, but at least not a lower rate.
Uh, I mean, yeah, Steve Jobs and education - yea! (Which is in itself ironic considering he dropped out and was auditing calligraphy...
You don't know what the frack you're talking about. The man was the least hands on boss I ever knew when you knew what the hell you were doing.
Steve was a not a Republican or Independent. He also couldn't stomach the GOP and if you noticed tonight the President took their private conversations forward and raise them an order of magnitude, two-fold.
Steve wanted 30,000 the President targeted 2 million.
Steve had no aspirations to be a Politician because he knew he could never convince a majority of folks he despised to see his vision. When you own a corporation you can clean house opposition and he did at Apple.
Apple and especially NeXT alumni are fiercely loyal to Steve because he earned the respect, and it sure as hell wasn't because he walked around cracking the whip.
As far as I've been able to determine, Jobs was a liberal, but not necessarily a Democrat.
Regarding the "crack the whip" comment, I take it you've not read the recent biography?
As far as I've been able to determine, Jobs was a liberal, but not necessarily a Democrat.
Regarding the "crack the whip" comment, I take it you've not read the recent biography?
Yeah, there was that part where the former workers for Apple said something to the effect that Steve pushed them hard, but also instilled a great sense of pride and accomplishment in their work and that was something they wouldn't trade for the world.
He almost mentioned Apple and Laurene Powell Jobs in passing. It would be interesting to know what Steve Jobs would have thought of the speech. Oddly enough, Apple is a poster child for "outsourcing" because it is either to expensive to manufacture things here, or because there aren't enough engineers and programmers here. Obama touched on both topics today, but was careful not to criticize the most valuable company in the world.
And ironically, Apple is one of the greediest companies on the planet. Think about it. They have a profit margin that would a Big Oil executive blush.
Apple's last quarter: 13.06 billion profit on 46.33 billion revenue = 28.2% profit
ExxonMobil 3Q11 (couldn't find 4Q11): 10.3 billion profit on 125.3 billion revenue = 8.2% profit
And Exxon's profits are inflated by the tax breaks they get (which should be taken away).
So why is Exxon evil and Apple the golden child?
Edit: Not meaning to take away from all the great things Steve and Apple accomplished. Just providing a point of perspective because "excessive" oil company (or any other company) profits are a popular rallying cry for some folks.