Posts Tagged ‘GE’

Cashing In

February 10, 2011

As a member of the silent majority (AKA tea party) you always hope that the terrible things that you think about politicians and big business are not true. But more and more they are proving, not only to be true but, to go beyond what you originally thought could be the worst case scenario. Such is the case with Jeff Immelt and Chairman Zero. Have a look here. As you all know Chairman Zero is the communist dictator of Amerika. But Jeff Immelt?

Jeff Immelt is the Chairman of the Board and CEO of General Electric (GE). Is that a conflict of interest? Did he appoint himself? I don’t know. Oh well, good work if you can get it. I don’t even think this guy quit his day job at GE to take this new appointment from Chairman Zero.

Anyway, many of you may have heard Glenn Beck speak of GE. He seems to think that they are some kind of evil empire. I think he was even talking about their deathstar one day. But all kidding aside they are one of the big players in the scam that is global warming. Curly fry light bulb (CFL)? That’s GE. Carbon credits? That’s GE. And the list goes on.

Too many times the Senator retires to a cushy six-figure income lobbying for the “company”. Or the Representative retires to a consulting position with the “company”. Are you beginning to see how this works? This is your tax dollars at work in all of this. Who is the only company in Amerika that makes the CFL? You guessed it, GE. There is even an e-mail circulating that demonizes the Chinese bulbs.

With this latest appointment has Chairman Zero secured that position on the board as the youngest Director of GE ever? Only time will tell but for now I just want you squishy libs to know that your fearless leaders are NOT as pure as the driven snow that rings in global warming. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Who’s Responsible

May 13, 2010

Today I have a question for you. Who is responsible for this country? Let’s look at this question in a few different ways. Who is responsible for our economic situation? Is Bush really the one who is responsible for all this crap? He did start it didn’t he? Did Bush start tarp or was it Pelosi and the boys? Or, is Obama responsible now? After all, he is the man in charge. When you buy a company do you go in and a year later blame its failure on the fact that your predecessor started it?

OK, let’s forget that for now. Who is responsible for border security? Bush didn’t get the fence built. Obama isn’t working on it. Should the State of Arizona do it all? What about Sheriff Joe? Can he do it all? I hear he’s running for Governor. The Governor they have is doing a pretty good job isn’t she? But what about Texas? Here’s an ADD question. How come we don’t hear about problems in New Mexico? Arnold is a total waste of space but then California got what they bargained for.

OK, forget that. What about unemployment? Why are GM and GE not doing more for America’s workers? (That even sounds communist.) Should there be some kind of law that says everybody is entitled to a job? What about Steve Jobs? He’s doing pretty well isn’t he? Shouldn’t he put on some more people? Or maybe the Microsoft guy, I hear he’s doing pretty good? Say, what about the feds? I hear they’re putting on 16,000 IRS agents? What’s that all about anyway?

OK, let’s look at this from my prospective. Who TOOK responsibility over the fields of Pennsylvania on September 11? Oh yeah. The American people baby, that’s who. I submit to you that the American people are responsible for this whole thing. Perhaps we should get off our couch and go vote. Or maybe do something radical like campaign for the candidate that is going to do the job we elect them for. How about this, get yourself elected? Ow that’s freaky huh?

Hey, just shooting from the hip here. Until next time, screw environmentalists.

Disappointment

February 24, 2010

There’s a lot of talk about Scot Brown being a disappointment. I don’t know how you feel but personally I expected a lot more. Of course I based my thinking on the thought that anyone who drives an old truck must be all good. I suppose I should have been considering the obvious, he’s a Republican from Massachusetts.

I guess he’s better than a Kennedy but here’s the thing. The Founding Fathers envisioned a congress where the average guy would leave his productive job and go “serve” in the congress and then go back home to his productive job. I read where the average salary in America today is $40,000.00. Who can afford to get elected on that kind of money? I will venture to say that we haven’t had an “average guy” in congress for many moons.

The type of jackal that runs for office today is normally backed by many a pocket-book all looking to get fatter, not skinnier. By the time an “average guy” gets in office he owes so many favors that he feels obligated to honor that he will inevitably produce votes like Mr. Brown’s “jobs bill” vote. He should be the poster boy for campaign finance reform.

Here’s a quick overview of my plan for campaign finance reform. Nobody spends more than $100,000.00. NOBODY! Not the Pres, nobody. No donation can exceed $100.00. This means all donations, corporate, personal, organization. The NRA can give you no more than $100.00. The SEIU can give you no more than $100.00. GM, GE, Mobil, McDonald’s, Fred Farkel, the girl up the street, the homeless guy on the corner, all no more than $100.00. If you can’t find 1,000 donations maybe you shouldn’t be running. All monies must be donated, none of your own.

Hey just a quick shot from the hip. Maybe one of you “average guys” out there can draft something up and introduce it. Probably not because congress has become a wealth building endeavor hasn’t it? That’s right, they’re rich when they go in and they’re even wealthier when they come out. Plus they usually have brokered a six figure income consulting some super-corporation after retirement. A retirement funded by the American people. What a scam. Oh well, until next time, screw environmentalists.

The McCain-Feingold Act

January 21, 2010

The McCain-Feingold Act was ruled unconstitutional today by the Supreme Court. What does this mean? Well that is a complicated answer. McCain-Feingold in itself is not that old (2002), but the crux of the act hearkens back to the turn of the twentieth century when robber barons used their wealth to elect politicians that would do their bidding.

Valid arguments can be made both ways. It is, after all, freedom of speech, but who’s speech? Who speaks for the SEIU, GM, the AFLCIO, or GE? I rather think the First Amendment protection of free speech applies to individuals. Does that include individual entities? Then the questionable aspects of the candidate being beholding to the corporation or organization that funds the ad comes into play, as was the case with the robber barons.

I think the ruling is correct. The freedom of speech must be preserved. But this freedom must apply only to individuals. The individuals hiding behind these corporate and organizational names should not be insulated from prosecution and law suits by the same laws that allow them this freedom of speech. An individual should be put forth to stand accountable for the good as well as the bad if an organization desires this kind of consideration from the American people.

A case in point is when I worked for a large automobile manufacturer I was required to belong to a union, even though I did not want to. The union donated to the Democrat Party. I did not like that either. If this is the case I should have been able to bring suit against the individual who made this decision. Does that sound fair? I don’t recall a vote at the union hall to see if we were going to donate. They just did it.

Let’s look at that logically. I had to pay a portion of my income to a group just to keep my job. That sounds like the old protection money the gangsters took from merchants so they didn’t put them out of business. Next they took that same money and gave it to a cause that I not only did not believe in, but at the time, worked against (I was a Republican). What’s that quote about a man being made to pay for something he abhors?

At any rate, we’ve gone back in time about a century on this law. Is that good? I don’t know. It seems like it should be so why do I have all this fear?