Comcast To Cut 300 Jobs

said by BIGMIKE:

What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy

»www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603

»www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

National Debt Graph: Bush Sets 50-Year Record
»zfacts.com/p/461.html

said by Skippy25:

You 2 morons do realize that a lot of this is also the result of the individual in office before Bush right?

Do a little history and economic search and you will see that Presidential policy runs for a long time after one's administration.

said by BIGMIKE:

What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy

»www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603

»www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

National Debt Graph: Bush Sets 50-Year Record
»zfacts.com/p/461.html

said by BIGMIKE:

What 8 years of BushCheney have done to our economy

»www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/1603

»www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

National Debt Graph: Bush Sets 50-Year Record
»zfacts.com/p/461.html

said by miscDude :

With the current economic climate, I'm at least happy to see the company is "tightening the belt" at the division and region levels and eliminating headcount there to save money, instead of cutting jobs in the call centers or techs on the ground. (or worse... sending the call center jobs overseas)

said by billybobthor:

instead of cutting jobs why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Damn greedy CEOs are the problem now a days. They dont need to be making anywhere near what they are making.

said by billybobthor:

instead of cutting jobs why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Damn greedy CEOs are the problem now a days. They dont need to be making anywhere near what they are making.

said by billybobthor:

instead of cutting jobs why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut? Damn greedy CEOs are the problem now a days. They dont need to be making anywhere near what they are making.

said by HiDesert:

I believe his dad founded the company and controlling interests still resides in the family. So yes, he can and will continue to loot the company with huge salaries and tens in millions in options/bonuses. He will lay off thousands before he would ever take a cut.

Really what needs to change is the federal tax code. Revert it back to the way it was in the seventies and guys like Roberts will have to be satisfied with only 2 million a year.. Since after that most was paid out in taxes. The reason for that tax code was born out of the thirties after the great depression since extremely wealthy families were accruing super normal wealth which in turn makes families powerful politically. The whole tax code was instilled to provide the average Joe a better shot and have more representation in their government. Nothing new here. All this was learned after the crash of 29 and we are about to repeat history.. again.

Now we have the top 5 percent income earners represented by the current Bush tax code and control a hugely disproportionate percentage of all assets. Nothing will change here ever.. I can assure you unless national policy and the tax code get changed. Theres no two ways about that.

To put it another way, the reason that CEO's used to make 15 to 20 times more then the average worker and more then 500 times more today is because the current US tax code allows for it. With the tax code as it is, it has nurtured an environment of corporate greed to new dimensions. Whats transpired are corporate heads cutting benefits, outsourcing etc.. etc.. adding to the trade imbalance and national debt since it will increase the bottom line and line their own pockets. This national policy and Bush tax code is catching up as many of us know too well. Also corporate deregulation makes it easier for CEO's to loot and the corporate greed spilled over into the entire banking sector which will now make everyone suffer. Also all the deregulation in trade.. with all the wonderful trade agreements really made CEO's very rich.. and many others loose their jobs. But when you allow corporations to have their way with the federal government.. and a federal government that would rather represent a corporate entity (non human being) over a real person.. then you will have big problems.

So its human nature to be greedy and given the opportunity, many people would take the millions just like Brian Roberts.. even if it means it hurts the middle class. The trickle down theory that corporations would do the right things.. the line of crap that we have been told since Reagon.. is crap. The only reason things worked out after the great depression was because of a new tax code. Not because greedy individuals such as Brian Roberts will do the right thing.

And anyone here who says that its communism to disagree with one person making 500 or 1000 times more then a regular worker is not understanding that supernormal wealth like this is dangerous and undermines democracy since those people can influence government with the power of money and they do and have been doing that for decades now.

said by HiDesert:


"The Great Depression happened because of the Smoot-Tawley Act and protectionism, and the fact that income taxes were RAISED, taking money out of the hands of business which meant no expansion, which meant layoffs, which led to less money to spend on commerce. When you go to protectionism, you are making it so you have fewer people (around the world) to sell to. So protectionism hurts world wide sales, tax increases hurt the domestic end.

Sorry, your version of 1929 is categorically incorrect."

Really? As I recall, the unregulated markets back in the twenties allowed investors to buy stock and borrow on margins that were more then stupid.. Kind of like how mortgage bankers became stupidly irresponsible in the last 5 years or so. Your unregulated markets is directly tied to the crash of the stock market in 29 and your unregulated markets today is why Americans have to bail out wall streets sorry as%%'s.

Yes, there was inflation in the seventies.. Know why? Because Johnson's guns and butter policy to completely finance the Vietnam war on debt.. it caught up to us by that time.. So what did we do? Reagan increased our national debt by over two trillion dollars and we spend our way out of that. At the same time we lost our status as being the largests creditor nations to being a huge debtor. Our exports went south in huge exponential magnitudes and most of our industrial base is gone. No my history is crystal clear.

AS for your version of protectionism, we are the only country that has free markets. Most all countries have laws to protect their local markets. We are at a disadvantage having to compete with countries that tax the hell out of our exports and have little protection for human labor laws. Our industry also is at a disadvantage since we expect our employers to pick up the tab on benefits when the rest of the world generally has a single pay health care plan. Which means our companies leave.

The former president of the federal reserve (Greenspan) board said one time many years ago in the seventies that he could avoid a downward economic cycle... like in Carters term.. So once he controlled the federal reserve he degulated banking. And he did avoid a recession.. for a short while.. Now we are going to pay a much higher price. As for your Soot_Tawley Act.. I think you need to dig deeper and see just how people were investing in the markets back then. There was no liquidity.. lots and lots of credit. Kind of like it is today.

The point is, there are economic cycles up and down. Carters term saw a down cycle caused by financing a war. Bush's first term was cycling down generally from too much degulation and job outsourcing and a trade imbalance going through the roof. Both Reagan and Bush thought they could spend their way out of it and deregulate it more. Looking how things are now you are desperate thinking that the supply side economics still has any merit. But its generally excepted that 28 percent of all Americas still believe in the trickle down theory.

And for your information.. the current tax code has made many people fantastically wealthy in recent years.. much of that wealth, can be shown has NOT been reinvested in the states but has been invested offshore. This is is a myth that the conservatives want middle class Americans to believe.

said by HiDesert:

Sorry I did not mean to imply that all the banking crisis was due to conservative policy. Your right, the democrats are equally at fault for the sub prime fiasco.. But I still believe Greenspan's decision to deregulate mortage banking and his public announcement years back that Americas SHOULD get variable rate loans was a poor judgement call. Yes he actually said that. If there is one person that could be singled out for much of this problem it would be Greenspan for sure. Since the president of chairman of the federal reserve bank can control the money supply with lowering or increasing the federal discount rate. Deregulation of mortage banking got us to where we are today. Clinton did well to control spending but I agree he added much to the global open market policy whether you agree with that or not.. (I don't). I'll also add there needs to be more financial incentives for companies to do business in the states. Also, its important to remember that personal income tax code after the thirties was created to prevent single families to accrue supernormal wealth since that was shown to make such individuals have undo political influence. This only kicked in after over 2 million in earnings a year. All I am saying is roll back the tax code to where it was under Clinton. Everything is a balance and it went the other way too much. For example, income earners pay a much less tax rate then salaried individuals. Income earners generally comprise of more of the higher class so they consequently have been paying lower taxes which is not fair. Everyone should take a fair share of the tax burden. On the other talk points I hear ya. I don't have to agree with you nor do I want to try to convince you otherwise. Thats why we all vote.. Hopefully everyone turns out this time around..

laters..

said by Parker19078 :

I find it hard to feel bad for a company that just spent $523 million to build a monolithic building in the hard of Philadelphia. I don't see Brian Roberts or his son taking any pay cuts to ease the hard times for the company.

said by Chuckles:

Working for Comcast I don't see a tad of what anyone above front line employees do except talk about weekends, bullshit and dress nice. We don't need managers, admin, blah blah blah, people dictating customer first... We need smart people answering the phones who can solve a problem on the first call!