Apple CEO Tim Cook tapped to advise President Trump's 'Office of American Innovation'

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Tim: Please advise Trump to to resign his current government internship and go back to the hospitality industry that he came from.
    Trump is actually doing pretty good even with a few set backs.   I really don't know if this office focused on innovation will do any good but at least it is a fresh approach.

    As for Cook he needs to get his head screwed on right.   The current nonsense about Transgender rights is absolutely stupid and will lead to significant safety issues for woman.   You don't promote somebodies supposed rights, at the expense of the safety of millions of woman.   Transgender people shouldn't expect anymore "rights" than the rest of the population enjoys.
    Metriacanthosaurus
  • Reply 62 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    Reducing American citizens to "customer" status sounds about right for the Trump administration.
    The other approach. is to enact a dictatorship much like the democrats would d like to see.    Looking at government as a service to the people it serves makes far more sense than the alternatives.    Every time you pay a tax you are effectively paying for a service, that is you are a customer.   As a customer you should expect good service.

    Seeing the citizens as customers of the various levels of government is actually a pretty rational way to look at government.    I mean honestly how would you like to be seen, as serfs maybe?  Frankly I would rather bee seen as a customer than a serf.
  • Reply 63 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    eightzero said:
    "The government should be run like a great American company," Kushner told the Post. "Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens."
    I've never understood this. How much profit does the DoD make annually?

    Governments aren't companies, and we aren't customers. We own the government - they work for us

    Notice the bold part in your message.   This is the whole idea of a customer based approach, you as a customer are paying for services that meet your expectations.   If you get a bill every month from the county for water you are in effect a customer of the water service.   If you pay property taxes you are paying for the educational system in your local area.

    You seem to equate being a customer as getting screwed over by a big corporation (Apple maybe).    Rather think about a small business that lives and dies on its ability to make customer happy.
  • Reply 64 of 99
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Is Kushner going to have time to organize this latest Trump doll collection?  I mean he will have to squeeze it in between testifying about his contacts with the Russian money laundering community, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and skiing at Aspen.
    baconstangmontrosemacs
  • Reply 65 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    "The government should be run like a great American company," Kushner told the Post. "Our hope is that we can achieve successes and efficiencies for our customers, who are the citizens."

    NO NO NO!
    We are the shareholders.  
    You are in effect both.   Your taxes pay for services and these services means that you are a customer.    As a customer you can have reasonable expectations to how those services are delivered and the quality of those services.   Your right to vote is in effect the share holder half of your relationship with government.    As a shareholder you have the right to replace management when things go sour thus the massive defeat of the Democrats in the last election.
  • Reply 66 of 99
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    quinney said:
    Is Kushner going to have time to organize this latest Trump doll collection?  I mean he will have to squeeze it in between testifying about his contacts with the Russian money laundering community, solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and skiing at Aspen.
    Trump isn't being investigated. What is being investigated are alleged contacts between his campaign and Russians, which is not a crime as far as I know and even Democrat insiders are saying there's no "there" there. Don't confuse the day-to-day BS of politics with anything of substance.
    edited March 2017
  • Reply 67 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    danyak said:
    I hope he accepts.  You don't influence those you disagree with by calling them names.  You influence them by getting to know them and speaking with them.  You don't agree with everything someone says when you agree to sit down and talk with them.  
    You're making the mistake of thinking that Trump and his people are normal human beings that can be reasoned with. Trump, at the very least, is clearly some kind of antisocial personality (narcissist, sociopath). They have no interest in "being influenced" and nothing is ever their fault.  
    montrosemacs
  • Reply 68 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    stickista said:
    Government is not a 'business'. Its purpose isn't to produce profit for stockholders.
    Apparently you have never read the constitution and its references to the general welfare of the people.   Government isn't here to make a profit in the corporate sense but it has to create a situation where a "profit' is produced for the people that are governed.   This profit is a robust and well managed economy, something our federal government has ignored for the last couple of decades.

    In any event you ignore that profit in a governmental sense is a good thing.   The alternative is governments formed with other goals with many examples south of the border.
  • Reply 69 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    danyak said:
    BTW - some commenters seem to mistake the concept with running the government like and efficient business with privatizing the government.  I don't favor privatization generally, but having worked in the government, I sure would like to see it run more like Apple.  Not that many or even most corporations don't have problems with "efficiency" and corruption!
    You're right: not many corporations don't have corruption. Probably the majority are just as corrupt as the government, or worse, because the same people are running both (there's a revolving door between political office and corporations) and regulation keeps being eliminated by corporatists lobbying and getting into politics.
  • Reply 70 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    Some critics have argued that executives opposed to Trump should refuse to collaborate.
    Well that is just fucking stupid, isn't it? Yeah that is how progress is made - act like petulant fucking child and not participate because you don't agree on everything.
    That is a huge problem with the extreme left.   They would rather riot than let somebody with different viewpoints express those opinions.   Beyond that you have a president right now trying to change things and actually engage business in making the right changes for America.   A petulant child will end up having zero influence when the changes are made.    
    Metriacanthosaurus
  • Reply 71 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    paxman said:
    mac_128 said:
    I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
    Because it's anti Trump.
    Why do the Trump brigade have such a chip on their shoulder? 
    Because they're driven by ego and belief, and therefore emotion, rather than rationality. They have to remain that way to deal with the cognitive dissonance of supporting someone that is clearly an incompetent and a liar (Trump). The trend of their beliefs not being backed up by facts does not stop them believing. People generally keep believing what they prefer rather than changing their positions to align with facts. Such people often reject expertise and valid data, getting angry at what they perceive to be a personal threat (because if their belief is wrong, their ego is harmed).
    apple jockeymontrosemacs
  • Reply 72 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    volcan said:
    melgross said:

    I hope you're being facetious. The ACA is very successful. It's not perfect. No complex legislation ever is. It would be working better if Republicans hadn't refused to fund the other $3.4 billion intended for the exchanges. Then health insurance companies wouldn't have dropped out. 
    The thing that no one ever wants to discuss is that the insurance companies are pulling out because so many people who are legally required to purchase a policy are opting to take their chances and pay a tax penalty instead - not that the millennials pay any taxes anyway, but that is another topic. The way they figure is that if they show up at an emergency room, they will get treatment even without having insurance. If everyone, especially the younger healthy individuals, would purchase insurance as they are supposed to, the policy costs would be less for everyone. But the entitled generation doesn't want to pay for anything. That is the sole reason ACA is not working as planned. I think Bernie has the right idea. Single payer. Free unlimited health care for all. Many other advanced countries have accomplished it, but it costs money and stingy people don't want to pay.
    What are you talking about? The millennials don't pay taxes?? Because the job market is so bad they can't find living wages to tax?

    The younger generation doesn't do what it's supposed to...??? Entitled generation??

    Who do you think most of the Sanders supporters were? Younger people. People fed up with the institution of corporatism. People who understand what taxes are for and want them to be taken more from those who are far higher income earners (and I use the word "earn" very loosely seeing as the more money you have the easier it is to compound your wealth without doing anything of value for others or for society).

    if you want to rant at entitled people, you need to target the wealthy baby boomers, the arrogant and lucky wealthy tech industry libertarians (as well as the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who think they'll get theirs so long as they keep promoting selfishness and pathological capitalism), and the millionaire republicans and democrats, NOT bash a generation of people who appeared on the scene and found themselves screwed by those who came before them.

    You're scapegoating a generation of people screwed over by the society they were born into, instead of calling out the privileged people responsible who are refusing to be held accountable because "life isn't fair; work harder. Be luckier and have richer parents."
  • Reply 73 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    volcan said:
    toddzrx said:
    OK, enough of your BS Mel.  Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.  Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens?  You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????

    It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
    You had to ruin a perfectly good rebuttal by tainting it with victim blaming. 
    anome
  • Reply 74 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member

    melgross said:
    Well, this just shows why business people should never hold the reigns of power. They have no idea what government is. Government is not a business. Efficiency is nice, but not required for a government. A government doesn't need to show a profit. 

    While businesses need to have a budget that breaks even, at worst, for a long time, and at best, show a profit, a government needs to do work for its people that can exceed the taxes taken in for a long time, something that would break most businesses. The difference is that while businesses can't create money, government can. That doesn't mean that governments should creat new money Willy nilly. But increasing the money supply is required for a growing economy. Sometimes increasing the money supply so that the currency loses value is helpful, such as for increasing exports. Business doesn't have any way of doing that.

    perhaps government is more akin to a charity, or non profit.

    at any rate, Kushner shows is incompetence here, as does his father in law. Neither seem to understand government. Trump declares that nobody knew that health care reform was so hard. Well, it seems that everyone but him knew that already.
    Normally I agree with you but I think you are way off base here.    You are right that government isn't a business but wrong on most other aspects of your post.   First Efficiency is an absolute requirement in government, otherwise you end up. with thousands sucking up tax dollars with no drive at all to deliver a good service.

    As a country one of the biggest problems we have right now is Government spending more money than it is taking in on taxes.   Right now we are in hock to a massive amount to countries we shouldn't even be having relationships with.   China is just one example.   massive spending by government, especially with the attendant debt has caused many countries to fail.   Those failures have lead to tragedy for the customers in those countries.

    The ability of government to create money is limited.   This is well known so I don't know why you think that is a positive.   In any event the "money supply" is a bit different than creating more money.

    Well the last thing I'd want to see is a government that thinks it is a charity.   I'm very cautious with my charity dollars because frankly most of them are self serving scams.  I'd rather see a government that sees us as customers and thus are afraid of loosing those customers.   In many cases though the business / customer relationship is very obvious, the FCC is one example where you are basically paying the FCC for its spectrum management services (amongst other things the FCC does).   The same thing can be said of the taxes you pay on tires and gasoline that are there (supposedly) to maintain the roads and bridges you drive upon.   You are in effect a customer of the interstate system and locally the counties road maintenance services.   As a customer you have a right to demand that those services correct problems related to the things they manage.    If you aren't a customer then what are you?    I ask in all seriousness because many seem to want to go back to the times of old when we where nothing but serfs to be governed, not free at all.   

    Actually health care isn't that hard, we just don't have the balls to dress it.    Here is the simple solution:
    1. Stop giving heath services to people that don't work!    Seriously let them die.    I've never understood the need some people have to help the lazy.   
    2. Regulate the cost of drugs.    500% over the cost of manufacture should be plenty.
    3. Focus on the young, not people with one foot in the grave already.    Yeah that sucks for old people but you had your chance to lead your life.   Over my 55 years I've seen far too many young people die from disease, yet we spend m(B)illions on people too old to be useful anymore.   This may sound cruel but everybody here will eventually die.
    4. Stop all support in insurance programs for elective surgery.   That means anything from a face lift to sex reassignment.   These are a burden one the rest of us from the vain and mentally ill.   
    5. Speaking of mentally ill. Lock them up.    This is another grief that liberalism has foisted upon us, there is no reason to let the dangerous roam the streets speaking to themselves.   Insane asylums (cold, dark and scary) where one of the smartest ways to handle these people and frankly we need to go back to treating the mentally ill correctly.   As such we need to also stop all production of drugs to treat the mentally ill as it is proven waste.   
    6. More importantly for the mentally ill that have murdered or otherwise created massive harm to society, we need a constitutional amendment supporting the execution of such people.    There is no redemption for these people and frankly you can never trust them so why keep them around?   Sounds excessive, consider how many extremely violent crimes have bene committed but the mentally ill lately.   Just implementing this would reduce how medial and prison burdens substantially.    Plus claiming "hey I was nuts" becomes counter productive for the average criminal

    Health care is simple, but the problem is nobody wants to admit they are human and will eventually die no matter what.   

  • Reply 75 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    melgross said:
    mac_128 said:
    I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
    Because it's anti Trump.
    Because it mostly reflects the feelings of most members. It's also correct.
    You just gave a perfect example of why journalism is dead. Sure, there are probably more liberals reading this forum, but there are others such as myself that don't share the same liberal views. When comments don't reflect the same opinions of the liberal moderators here, comments get shut down. That's why I think it's pretty funny all the anti Trump rhetoric seems ok, yet when someone has an opposing view, thread is closed.  
    You're confusing facts with "anti-Trump rhetoric".

    As for "more liberals" in here, it usually seems more like this place is a libertarian stronghold (as are most tech forums). Maybe it just seems that way because they're so vociferous. 
  • Reply 76 of 99
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member

    carnegie said:
    carnegie said:
    volcan said:
    toddzrx said:
    OK, enough of your BS Mel.  Please go ahead and make your case as to why health care should be a right and not a privilege.  Your actually trying to say that health care should be written into the constitution as a guarantee to all citizens?  You're going to claim that a product/service is a "right"????

    It is sort of written into the Constitution. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." If you don't have health, there is no pursuit of happiness. That said, it shouldn't really apply to people with a three foot wide arse who can't stop shoving food down their pie hole.
    The phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" does not appear in the Constitution, it appears in the Declaration of Independence.

    The closest phrasing that appears in the Constitution is, probably, found in the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

    That said, the right to heath care likely is contemplated by some provisions of the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the Privileges and Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article IV, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause, i.e. Clause 2 of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and the 9th and 10th Amendments). U.S. citizens no doubt have a constitutional right to health care. But having a constitutional right to something is not the same as having a constitutional right to have it provided to you by the government. For the most part, the former means that the government can't prohibit you from having something or from doing something. It doesn't mean the government has to give you something or do something for you.

    The constitutional right to freely exercise your religion doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bible or build a church for you. The right to keep arms doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with an arm. The right to speak freely doesn't mean that the government has to provide you with a bullhorn or a printing press. There are, at least as the Constitution has been interpreted, some exceptions based on particular circumstances. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that the rights guarantees in the Constitution contemplated a right to be provided, by the government, with health care.

    Whether government should provide health care (or health care coverage) to everyone is a separate consideration, of course.
    People most certainly do not have a constitutionally defensible right to health care. If they did, it would be in the Constitution.
    Are you referring to a right to have it provided to them by the government? If so, then yeah, I agree.

    If, however, you're referring to having a right to health care meaning that the government can't prohibit you from getting health care... then, I disagree. Many rights were meant to be protected by general provisions found in the Constitution (e.g. the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause(s)) rather than by specific enumeration. Framers understood that they couldn't explicitly mention every specific protection that citizens (or residents) were meant to enjoy, so in some places they used general language to refer to the broad spectrum of rights which were meant to be protected.
    Not prohibiting a person from seeking out healthcare isn't the same as a constitutionally protected right. That's a simple matter of a buyer and a seller choosing to engage in trade, which need not involve any "blessing" by Federal or State government. Standard contract law applies.
    And here we see the heart of the problem: thinking of health as a product to buy and sell. Are you in agreement with the nestlē CEO that people don't have a right to water?
  • Reply 77 of 99
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    dysamoria said:
    paxman said:
    mac_128 said:
    I'm kinda stunned ... how has this thread not been shut down?
    Because it's anti Trump.
    Why do the Trump brigade have such a chip on their shoulder? 
    Because they're driven by ego and belief, and therefore emotion, rather than rationality. They have to remain that way to deal with the cognitive dissonance of supporting someone that is clearly an incompetent and a liar (Trump). The trend of their beliefs not being backed up by facts does not stop them believing. People generally keep believing what they prefer rather than changing their positions to align with facts. Such people often reject expertise and valid data, getting angry at what they perceive to be a personal threat (because if their belief is wrong, their ego is harmed).
    What is perplexing here is that you apparently think that the previous administration was better in some way.    Yet Obama lied about more things than Trump has.   Further Obama went about manipulating facts in a very hideous way to try to get is agenda furthered.   Obama even directed the fabrication of facts.
  • Reply 78 of 99
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 241member
    dysamoria said:
    Because they're driven by ego and belief, and therefore emotion, rather than rationality. They have to remain that way to deal with the cognitive dissonance of supporting someone that is clearly an incompetent and a liar (Trump). The trend of their beliefs not being backed up by facts does not stop them believing. People generally keep believing what they prefer rather than changing their positions to align with facts. Such people often reject expertise and valid data, getting angry at what they perceive to be a personal threat (because if their belief is wrong, their ego is harmed).
    Wow.  If anyone is emotionally driven, sounds like that'd be you.  Stereotype much?
  • Reply 79 of 99
    jagnutjagnut Posts: 23member
    melgross said:
    Well, this just shows why business people should never hold the reigns of power. They have no idea what government is. Government is not a business. Efficiency is nice, but not required for a government. A government doesn't need to show a profit. 

    While businesses need to have a budget that breaks even, at worst, for a long time, and at best, show a profit, a government needs to do work for its people that can exceed the taxes taken in for a long time, something that would break most businesses. The difference is that while businesses can't create money, government can. That doesn't mean that governments should creat new money Willy nilly. But increasing the money supply is required for a growing economy. Sometimes increasing the money supply so that the currency loses value is helpful, such as for increasing exports. Business doesn't have any way of doing that.

    perhaps government is more akin to a charity, or non profit.

    at any rate, Kushner shows is incompetence here, as does his father in law. Neither seem to understand government. Trump declares that nobody knew that health care reform was so hard. Well, it seems that everyone but him knew that already.
    "Efficiency is not required of the government"?  What planet did you come off.  I guess you like the government paying $5,000 for a toilet seat for example?  Of course government needs to be efficient.  It's precisely what's wrong and why we are in so much debt.  It's also what is wrong with our medical system.  I also applaud Trump with what he is doing in reaching out. 
  • Reply 80 of 99
    What's up with these "Apple can't innovate" comments?  Who exactly is innovating then?  Seems to me the entire industry is in a lull and everyone is just refining products.

    Having Cook involved in the admin sounds like a great idea. If you've been in business long enough you'll see the value in having opposing views. 
    SpamSandwich
Sign In or Register to comment.