Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Timothy Daniels, Feb 27, 2005.

  1. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Wrong, I started an IT company 2 years ago, and have been adding work
    since the second month. It's no easy finding people willing to work and
    that have a good technical background also.

    I've found that every one of our customers, across the USA, is also hiring
    on a regular basis - care to explain away reality?
    Leythos, Mar 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. reality is a quality or state of being actual or true. your reality may be
    that there has been job creation among the people that you know, but the
    national reality is that there has been a net loss of jobs during bushes
    first term. this is an example of why you can not rely on local polling and
    a good lesson for a startup businessman like yourself to learn.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 16, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Chris, the loss of jobs was started before Bush took office, at least in
    the IT community it was started during the Clinton regime. During the Bush
    years I've seen the normal order of business changes - meaning that due to
    the expanding of technology over the globe, making data/communications
    possible like have never before been possible, the outsourcing of many
    jobs, and the investments of the countries in data/call centers in order
    to take those jobs for low rates. It's a natural order and has nothing to
    do with Bush or really Clinton - the technology made it easier and very
    simple to change projects and call type jobs to countries where they rate
    is 1/10th of the US rate.

    As for net job loss, it's been a lot of political hype - sure, there are
    many people out of work, and many people were blindly ignorant and didn't
    see it happening until they got their pink slips, but it was writing on
    the wall for more than a year in most locations if people just weren't

    I left a job as a director making a very good salary, I left that job on a
    spurious decision, I had always want to start my own company, but, when
    asked to fire a group in order to outsource their positions - I decided to
    leave that company and start my own. No planning, no seed money, etc.. and
    the interesting thing is that we're still growing, we're still making
    money, and we're still picking up quality clients and adding to the team.
    We have not been impacted by the economy, but I suspect we understand the
    nature of the industry and where it's moving/needs are and were to
    position our skills/resources for best ROI.

    You can't blame Bush for job loss during his first term, no President has
    that much impact on the economy, it was already in the works when he took
    office. If you go back and look at the economy and where it was headed,
    there was nothing that any President (either R/D/I) could have done to
    prevent it, it's just simple economics and corporate greed.
    Leythos, Mar 16, 2005
  4. Timothy Daniels

    Bea xx Guest

    Why are you bandering back and forth about the Social Security crap
    when the solution is so simple? Why can't the government resolve to
    keep it's greedy hands off of those funds collected and THEY can just
    put the funds into a SAFE conservative investment which will be there
    when the citizens need the funds?

    The idea of telling people they can keep some of it to save and invest
    for themselves is so ridiculous it belongs in "Believe it or not by
    Ripley", IMO. Many of these folks are people barely managing to skim by
    on their minimum wage and other low paychecks. Does anyone (except
    those genius politicians in Washington) really believe these people are
    going to save these dollars? They are going to SPEND them for rent,
    food, or whatever they need at the time! Not everyone is fortunate
    enough to have great paying jobs or the inclination to protect their
    futures. BUT when they are old and need support, we just might find a
    nation plagued with so many on the welfare roles, whoever came up with
    this "let them save for their own future" will dread the day they put SS
    into the hands of minimum and other wage earners.

    Supposedly, the US has one of the lowest rates for saving and we are
    going to entrust more money to the citizens "not" to save! The
    government by this is admitting they can't be entrusted with the funds,
    yet they want us to believe our fellow American "can"!

    Too bad many years ago when the government first started raiding the SS
    piggybank Americans did not flood Washington with letters refusing to
    allow this to happen. But then again, I guess they were all on this
    DELL site bitching at one another instead of their government. (Excuse
    me! "I" don't spend all my time bitching in discussion groups. My
    politicians in Washington are well aware of my opinions. I certainly
    hope many of you are doing the same.)

    Bea xx, Mar 16, 2005
  5. Timothy Daniels

    Bea xx Guest

    Irene is giving in - "honey" is a sure tipoff.

    I think not. When most women get to the point of saying "honey" in such
    discusions, it would seem to me they are loading their big guns and will
    certainly come back with more ammunition. I note she also repeated the
    "honey" in another post. It's not the word she is saying but what her
    tone would be if she were being vocal to him. This should "really" get
    interesting now. I would not put my guard down if I were him.<g Just my
    opinion as a female who is well aware of the two versions of "honey".

    Bea xx, Mar 16, 2005
  6. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    Yea, when my wife starts calling me "Honey" I know I'm in serious trouble,
    and if she does it in front of other people I know that I've done/said
    something wrong - now if I could just figure out what before she smacks me
    in the head :)
    Leythos, Mar 16, 2005
  7. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
    but the fact remains that bush is the first president to loose jobs since
    hoover; despite your 'reality' and all the justification in the world.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 16, 2005
  8. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    If you understood anything about the Economy you would understand that
    "Bush didn't lose any jobs", the corporations as part of our free market
    moved those jobs outside the USA and there is/was nothing that the US
    Government could do about it - it started under Clinton's watch and
    continued into Bush's first term. You can only hold the corporate greed
    responsible for it, not any elected official.

    My reality is to understand the economics, market, worker skill pools,
    services demand, and the value of services we offer.

    How about you spout something other than news-media drivel, how about you
    come back with a response based on your OWN findings and understanding and
    not these news-story clippings you post.

    So, you going to show me where Bush hasn't turned the Clinton economy

    It would also be nice if you bottom posted when you reply so that the
    thread can be properly followed.
    Leythos, Mar 16, 2005
  9. Timothy Daniels

    Irene Guest

    I am beginning to think that Chris believes in a government that does
    everything for the individual and is responsible for and will care for the
    individual from birth to death. In return, that same government has a right
    to as much of the assets of those same individuals as said government
    wishes to take. At least that appears to be the types of groups that he
    likes to quote and refer to in his posts.

    Irene, Mar 16, 2005
  10. sheesh, can't you just concede a simple fact which you misspoke about?
    please don't believe me, go to the department of labour's site and add up
    the numbers yourself. of course when you determine the facts are as i say
    you can publish your conspiracy theory on why the department of labour
    statistics are wrong.
    Christopher Muto, Mar 16, 2005
  11. Timothy Daniels

    Leythos Guest

    I never said you were wrong, I said that "Bush had nothing to do with it".
    You do realize that the loss of jobs was entirely related to the way
    business changed and had nothing to do with government? If you don't
    believe me, then show me one case where a policy put in place by Bush has
    cost any significant loss of jobs in the US - come one, you're the one
    saying it's Bush's fault, now prove it.

    From what I've seen, you won't bother posting any reputable source that
    shows that Bush "Caused" the loss of jobs, but I can point you to many
    companies that moved their work off-shore, and you can bet it wasn't Bush
    asking them to do it - it's about Corporate greed, which starts with the
    Investors greed.

    So, show me where it was Bush's fault that the economy was changing and
    that Businesses decided to move their work to off-shore locations - come
    one, put up or shut-up.
    Leythos, Mar 16, 2005
  12. Timothy Daniels

    Paul Knudsen Guest

    Certainly. Fine with me. Write your congressperson. However NO
    investment is 100% safe, remember. But the S&P ought to earn a little
    and keep up with inflation.
    Yes, that's the thing with private accounts. What do you do if the
    participant wants to withdraw? People lose their jobs, get sick, and
    they'd make a good case for being able to access that money. But then
    they'd have nothing for retirement.
    Yeah, it's our consumer society. Buy! Buy! Buy!
    You're off base here. Whether or not the trust funds are in the
    budget, they are invested in Treasury bonds. If the time ever comes
    that the Treasury can't pay off, we'll have a lot more than SS to
    worry about.
    Anyway, it looks like the Bush plan is all but dead, so likely nothing
    will get done this year and probably not in the Bush term at all.
    Just yesterday four Republicans crossed over to support a resolution
    not to increase the deficit.

    So, I'm going to try real hard to ignore this thread henceforth.
    Hasta La Vista.
    Paul Knudsen, Mar 16, 2005
  13. Sparky stands by his post.
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  14. Work or workers?
    Is this a typo, i.e., "no" should have been "not"? (or are you a Scotsman?)
    The key is "net" gain/loss of jobs. Like Hoover, Bush has a net loss. No
    one claims that no one has hired anyone in the US since 01/20/2001.
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  15. Whoa, whoa, whoa, it's not up to us to prove there is *no* crisis - Bush
    claims there is a crisis to justify changing SS, so it's up to him to
    substantiate that claim or STFU.
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  16. Sorry this was over your head.

    Don't you think Wolfowitz will make a great president of the World Bank?
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  17. Right, but "average return" don't butter the biscuit. What's it yielded
    over the last 4, 5 & 6 years and what about the people who become
    disabled or retire when the market is down? The value of the current
    system is that the benefit is *always* the same, i.e., it's guaranteed.
    There's a lot to be said for that as a safety net. Any additional funds,
    i.e., non-SS $$$, may be invested at whatever level of risk their owner
    is comfortable and God bless her.
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  18. Paul Knudsen wrote:

    You're a wise man, Paul.

    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  19. But isn't "or something like that" her ultimate weasel phrase?
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
  20. Exactly what does that prove, that it doesn't agree with Rush, Sean and
    the other little neocon dweebs? No crime there.
    Sparky Singer, Mar 17, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.