Ok, I double read the article.... the linkage to Romney is what? The day after
Chrysler's chief directly called the Romney campaign out for creating false
fears that Jeep production was moving to China, basically saying the campaign
was spreading lies, the DN decides to run a piece on honesty featuring a picture
of Romney. Not only that, GM has also called out the Romney campaign for
spreading lies about production moves to China for GM as well.Now I
get that unfortunately Romney does not control everything his surrogates say,
and that he himself makes misleading and false statements when he is ill
informed. That is what happens in large organizations. It would just be nice
to remember that fact when speaking about those on the opposite side, that
things get murky in large organizations.But to run an ethics and
honesty piece as a thinly vailled news piece..... DN, really, give it a rest.
The article was actually quit good..... it is just that your photo editor once
again couldn't help themselves in putting a partisan spin on it.
But.... This article contradicts what we hear daily. As does the article last
week about what large corporations believe needs to happen.We have
been told that repealing Obamacare and lowering taxes were the most important
issues in fixing our economy.Instead, the economy and the deficit is
are the highest priorities.How to lower the deficit? Easy, but
politically tough.Reform entitlements and reduce expenditures.
Reduce the growth in health-care costs.Reduce Defense spending. Raise
taxes.That is a balanced approach which corporate leaders endorse.
Sounds like small business owners would also support it.Drop the
party ideology, tell Grover to take a hike, and tell congress to work together
for a reasonable compromise between these things.The answers are
fairly simple, if we could get party politics out of the way.
Then I guess there won't be many business owners voting for Romney, eh?
It will be interesting to see which Mitt governs if elected: the tea-party
Romney who was accused of being a liar by his Republican challengers or the
moderate Mitt who Etch-a-Sketched himself back into existence at the first
presidential debate. Since we don't really know which Mitt is the real one,
how are we to vote? Does any of this relate to ethics and honesty? Apparently
not in Mitt's definition of the terms.
The problem with the term â€śsmall businessâ€ť is that it does not truly
reflect a distinct group of people. The character and nature of a small
business is largely determined by the size and structure. And since the size
can range from 1 to many hundred employees in all sorts of business ownership
structures it is hard to make a statement that fits all of them. Politicians often paint the picture of small business as a small entity when
talking to the public but when creating laws give more attention to the large.
The actual fact is that business from the tiniest individual to the
largest international corporation has as itâ€™s main purpose the job of
increasing the wealth of itâ€™s owner(s).There is no morally
greater reason for granting special status to the manner in which a person makes
a living. The businessman, farmer, soldier or any other endeavor, should not
receive any more respect or deification than the street sweeper. However, anything that can be done to improve honesty and decency will be
greatly appreciated by the people.
Integrity and ethics are part of the Theory of Relativity.Does a
person have integrity if they hide their income, pay low taxes and build their
wealth on the backs of the citizens and in the country with loophole laws
favoring the rich? Does a person have ethics if they float their
principles upon the raft of current popularity?These principles are
relative. Relative to whom you want to trust. Relative to religion. Relative to
gender, race, appearance.
If what this article report on is true, then the embarrassing series of lies
told by Mr. Romney should be reason enough for a Democratic landslide in
Utah...my bet is that most in Utah will vote based on perceived tags:
conservative/liberal and/or on religious affiliation...ethics will come in last.
Let's get over Chrysler shall we? They are not an American vehicle anymore.
-"Fiat SpA majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to
return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that
country, according to the head of both automakersâ€™ operations in the
region. Fiat is in â€śvery detailed conversationsâ€ť with its Chinese
partner, Guangzhou Automobile Group about making Jeeps in the worldâ€™s
largest auto market, said Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and
Chrysler in Asia". Oct 21, 2012Mitt was just repeating what Fiat
SLars - you forgot to add "Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at
plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. Manley referred to adding Jeep production
sites rather than shifting output from North America to China." Same
interview.When Mitt raised the claim that Jeep would be MOVING
production to China... a complete misrepresentation of what was said.... FIATs
president responded with"DETROIT (Reuters) - Chrysler Group LLC
Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne reaffirmed on Tuesday that the company is not
moving Jeep vehicle production out of the United States to China after it became
an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign."after which the
Romney campaign continued to run adds making the claim about the move, as well
as using it as a talking point on the campaign trail in Ohio.So
either Chrysler/Fiat doesn't know what they are talking about, or the
Romney campaign is choosing to ignore statements by the companies themselves and
use their own version of the truth.FIat/Chrysler may not be an
American owned company - haven't been for a long time - but they employee
60,000 Americans.. and over 100,000 through its dealer network. So what they
say does matter.