Home Invites Members Groups Events Careers Directories Videos News Photos Blogs Singles Forums Chat Health & Wellness
Home > Blogs > Post Content

Obama, GOP cautiously optimistic post-summit (938 hits)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama deemed the so-called Slurpee Summit with GOP leaders "a good start" toward ending an ideological logjam on Capitol Hill.

"The American people did not vote for gridlock," Obama said following the two-hour White House meeting."They did not vote for unyielding partisanship. they're demanding cooperation and they're demanding progress and they'll hold all of us, and I mean all of us, accountable"

Obama huddled with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker-in-Waiting John Boehner (R-Ohio).

The two sides failed to reach a consensus on whether to keep Bush era tax cuts in place for the middle class and wealthy Americans making more than $250,000 per year.

Boehner said the first strategy session with Obama since the GOP crushed Dems at the polls earlier this month was a "nice meeting."

He and McConnell made clear they were coming in with a just-say-no strategy on what they called Obama's "liberal wish list."

The penned an op-ed in the Washington Post Tuesday, vowing to put up roadblocks on "controversial items" such as immigration reform and gays in the military.

The White House powwow was dubbed the Slurpee Summit after Obama accused GOPers earlier this year of sucking down Slurpees while Democrats hustled to improve the economy.

Emboldened Republicans have worked the barb to their advantage.

"I don't know about a Slurpee. How about a glass of merlot?" Boehner recently quipped to reporters.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/30/2010-11-30_president_obama_sits_down_with_gop_leaders_to_discuss_tax_cuts.html#ixzz16nKHTmfc


Posted By: anita moore
Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 2:22PM
You can also click here to view all posts by this author...

Report obscenity | post comment
Share |
Please Login To Post Comments...
Email:
Password:

 
This is not sounding good at all:

"Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) indicated little to no willingness to move off their perch of opposing any reversion of tax rates (for any income bracket) to pre-Bush levels."

So coming in they're basically saying that they're not compromising. Which means that Obama has to cave in to work with them.

But this next statement is indicative of how these people cannot be trusted and don't deserve all the deference and hand-holding Obama is giving them:

"They and incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor did, however, stress that the President admitted he had not kept up enough dialogue, to date, with his GOP critics."

Here we go with the surrendering again. Why admit to something like this when that hasn't been the case? Obama has bent over backwards, to the extent of pissing off his own supporters, in reaching out to the republicans. "Bipartisanship," and "reaching across the aisle is all Obama has done, even to the detriment and watering down of his own policies. That they would say this, evern after all the reaching out he has done, says to me that the only thing that will satisfy these people is if Obama sets aside his own agenda for theirs. But the voters did not vote for that this past election.

Read the full story here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/30/obama-gop-bush-tax-cuts-_n_789879.html


Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 6:08PM
Yey Brotha Clark President Obama stated he thinks they made inroads and some progress, Yea! on his side. The republicans are in opposition. We see it, the world sees it. Why can't the President see it. I know he's under stress to be bi-partisan, but that doesn't mean cow tow to these idiots who want nothing more than to line their pockets and the pockets of the rich and famous. Times never change, the rich just keep on getting richer.
Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 6:28PM
anita moore
Something we tend to forget, how do the rich get rich? Why aren't we all rich? How come I'm not the President? Where would we be without the overachievers? No. let's just treat them like criminals because they do the things the rest of us can't or won't.
Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 7:41PM
Steve Williams
Steve I in no way would deny the rich what they deserve, but they should also pay their way. The more you make the more taxes you should be responsible for. They have a cut off, I believe 1 million to be the cap. I could be wrong on that. If they paid their way and werenít given all of these cuts, everybody would be better off. If everybody in the world were overachievers, there would be no world order and no balance. After all someone needs to operate those businesses on lower levels therefore creating said world order. I know there needs to be order in the world, but it seems to me that this world is out of order. How come the top 2% continue to get richer and richer.and the poor get progressively poorer.
If more opportunities were available for more, a whole heck of a lot more people would be rich. Not only that, those who have been there will be the one to help those that need to get there. When you havenít been there, you donít give a dam. I never said treat them like criminals, just pay their dues like everybody else.

Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 10:21PM
anita moore
Steve, if all it took was "overachieving" to be rich, there would be a hell of a lot more rich people. But we do not live in a meritocracy. So how do the rich get rich?

Asking them to go back to the pre-Bush level of taxation is not persecution. One of the richest men in America, Warren Buffet and others, have said that the rich don't need another tax cut and many of them would not have a problem going back to the rates that were in place pre Bush. It would be good for the economy and the country.

Hell, we could get cute and invoke the name of the right wing patron saint, Reagan, and ask them to go back to the Reagan levels of taxation. Did Reagan over tax the rich?

The question I have for you is why do so many on the right who are not rich themselves and have a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming rich, fight so hard for the rich to have ever more?

Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 11:44PM
I apologize Anita, I wasn't saying you specifically treated them as criminals, but making a general observation about how the rich are often seen. But the rich do more than pay their way. It's called the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Say an employee has stock options (which is a common incentive for those working in a startup company). The company succeeds (this takes a lot of commitment from the employee: sacrifice of health, family, leisure time, etc.) and the company goes public. Say the stock options are exercisable at $.10 a share, and the shares rise to $100 a share. Say the employee needs to exercise the options for whatever reason. The term limit is expiring, the employee is leaving the company, whatever. Now say the employee has 10,000 shares, but isn't going to sell, just exercise the options. So he/she pays $1000 to buy the 10,000 shares. He/she is now a millionaire on paper. But even though he/she is not selling the shares, they have the privilege of paying the government the tax on $999,999 (the difference between the exercise price and the value at the time of exercise). Remember, he/she doesn't want to sell the shares, but will likely need to, because he/she now has a tax liability on $999,999 and he/she hasn't made a cent for his/her self. That's the beauty of AMT, and the American Dream.
Tuesday, November 30th 2010 at 11:55PM
Steve Williams
Okay, so I can't subtract. Read: $999,000.
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 12:08AM
Steve Williams
Clark, here's a reposting, but the full article is now in the archives and I didn't feel like setting up an account to retrieve it. Still, I know I don't need to tell you where venture capital comes from.

Mercury News (08/25/10) O'Brien, Chris

The latest study from the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) found that 10-year returns on venture capital investments turned negative at the end of last year and plummeted in the first quarter of this year, while 90 percent of surveyed venture capitalists expect industry contraction through 2015. Mercury News columnist Chris O'Brien says this trend signals a venture industry in free fall, and NVCA president Mark Heesen says that fewer innovative companies are being founded amid the increased difficulty in obtaining venture capital. The platform for the venture sector's financial model was having a substantial number of their portfolio companies hold initial public offerings (IPOs), but the IPO market has been in a holding pattern this past decade, and a revival of IPOs this year has not happened. The combined trends of fewer startups and wide-ranging consolidation translates into an impediment to job creation, and O'Brien concludes that "with venture capital in retreat, we must look elsewhere for a new model for startup funding to kick-start [Silicon Valley's] next era of innovation and the kind of job creation we desperately need."

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 1:05AM
Steve Williams
Irma, how many pages long is the tax code?
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 1:36AM
Steve Williams
Brotha Steve, Companies offering stock options would be great, but its rare for a company to offer its employees actual stock options, and most companies get out of paying AMTís, if their taxes already exceeds the tax limits calculated by the government, that company becomes exempt.
Steve youíre giving us a lot of what ifs, not actual. What remains is the banks ainít lending to start-up and small companies and the rich are getting richer. If those tax cuts go into effect for the higher 2%, the poor will continue to get poorer.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 9:47AM
anita moore
Steve, I understand the venture capital dynamic and how that helps startups and ultimately jobs. Unless I am missing something, the data you presented here seems to say the tax cuts didn't really help the IPO situation for the period in question.

But there is the thinking that if we go back to the rates we had pre the Bush Tax cuts, the sky is going to fall in and the rich will be treated unfairly. The question becomes, how much is enough?

As I have said many times before, and there are data to back this up, during the Bush years, the net job creation rate was zero. We lost about the same amount of jobs during those years as was gained. And yet, this was during the time when the tax rates were the lowest ever. The venture capital model is fine as an example, but what is left out is the human angle. Its not logical to assume that if a person has more money they will invest it in job-creating ventures. That did not happen during the Bush tax cut years apparently. So the idea that "the rich" (and maybe that's the problem -- terminology) will use the money to create jobs is not necessarily true.

The bottom line is the tax policy advocated by the right serves to concentrate more money at the top, and that does not work well for the economy as it would if money is concentrated at the bottom. Money injected into the economy bottom up tends to work better in terms of growing the economy. When that happens, as we saw during the Clinton years, jobs are created, the IPO market booms, and everybody makes money.

I think the problem here is the right tends to look at this more from an ideological perspective rather than an economic one. Our family will take a hit if tax cuts for those over $250K are allowed to expire, but the amount that it would be is negligible. Sure, I can use very dollar but if it will help get the economy back on track I donít mind. Besides, if that happens its going to benefit me in the mid to long term anyway. Buffet pointed out the same thing, and its really just standing on principle to that people push back on this, rather than economic need or common sense.

If you ask me it appears as if the problem they have is ďmy moneyĒ is going to ďthose people.Ē You see that thinking with unemployment compensation. The right canít get off the fact that people will have money and spend it, rather than look at the utility of that in terms of getting the money into the economy from the consumer end where it will do the most good.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 10:44AM
Anita, the information I presented is based on my actual experience with startups, venture capital, stock options and AMT. I participated in the dotcom bubble, before it became known as dotcom. Also participated in the housing bubble. What goes up must come down, and our current situation is due to the cycle of fear and greed, not politics. We had surpluses under Clinton, not because of policy, but because of a whole lot of revenue coming in from all those people that became rich off the development of the Internet. More below to Clark.
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 11:15AM
Steve Williams
Clark, I don't correlate administrations with economic health the same way you do. I don't believe the 10 year period of a lack of IPOs is related to tax rates. It is the economic downside, the fear part of the cycle. Economics is not an exact science. We should just settle on tax rates and simplify the tax code, and quite playing around with monetary control, tax control, bottom up, top down and all the rest of this nonsense. Nobody can prove what effect these various measures have. The best thing we can do is settle on fair tax rates, and we absolutely should get rid of AMT, and simplify the tax code and eliminate all the machinations. When we play with the money supply/demand it is playing with fire, just like they are playing with fire with geoengineering. We are not smart enough to meddle in either of these fields.
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 11:32AM
Steve Williams
Brotha Clark, I too owned a business in what was considered the economic boom, and even then banks would not extend venture capital, except to a certain criteria of people, myself not included, at a time when I had an excellent job, excellent credit and collateral, after all I was a government employee . I succeeded through 60,000.00 in grants and loans, which if not for the SBA I would not have obtained, because the information was not out there, especially for people like myself (African American single moms). Thank God for good accountants.
The dotcom and housing bubble burst for what reasons? Greed! The fact is the capital was distributed to the top 2% and the middle class barely got the leftovers. It didnít have to burst, but due to greed , thatís exactly what happened, and whose greed was it? The Rich! So now if they spread that money around a little more evenly this go round, like you said, what goes up, at least there would be cushion. If only the rich get richer, then when the bottom falls out, there is no where to go but flat out bottom with no cushion in between!

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 12:26PM
anita moore
Steve, fair enough. The tax code should be simplified. The AMT is a problem as well. I've been dealing with that for some time now myself. But I would not equate cutting taxes on the top, and it doesnít matter which party is proposing the cuts, with simplifying the tax code.

And get this:

"During the golden era of the 1950s, a Republican president, along with Republican members of Congress, accepted a top marginal tax rate for millionaires that was 91 percent.íThe only way to make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and to borrow more and more money,' President Eisenhower argued. 'This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. An unwise tax cutter, my fellow citizens, is no real friend of the taxpayer.'"

So isn't it safe to say then, that this ever increasing pressure to cut taxes is irresponsible? If anything, that is where the uncertainty and pressure is, with the expectation that we will keep cutting taxes down and we've gotten to the point where we simply do no have enough income to pay our bills.

They like to say the government needs to manage its finances ďlike a family.Ē Well, whatís being proposed with these tax cuts is very irresponsible, because that would be like me saying, Iím only going to bill 20 hours per week, and then spend the rest of the time goofing off. But at the same time, Iím not cutting back on my expenses. I would have to do like the feds and borrow, but borrowing is not a replacement for income because you pay interest, and there is always a limit to what can be borrowed. But weíre borrowing to replace the lost income.

Obamaís commission is proposing, among other things, to cut the top tax rate down to 23%. But as Eisenhower pointed out, this causes deficits. Weíve seen that happen, so we know this is not just politics. Tax cuts for the sake of them are just not good policy.

So if our goal is to decrease the deficit, tax cuts are not going to do it. The way we decrease the deficits is to stimulate the economy to create jobs, and you do that by putting money into the hands of consumers and small business, to create demand to justify hiring. The tax revenues will increase from the hiring and economic activity.

As Eisenhower realized back then, tax cuts do not decrease the deficit, they add to it. Experience has shown that to be a fact.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 12:28PM
Anita, it just does not follow that if you have a good business idea, and good credit, you will get capital to expand your business. You can't always assume that. As for venture capital, its been my experience that you have to have a "track record" and that oftentimes means having some type of relationship with the right people. This is a gap the SBA tried to fill with loans to small businesses.

Its no mystery; whenever the economy gets too far out of balance, e.g. wealth concentrated in one area, the bust that is to come is that much larger. As it stands now, the disparity in wealth has never been greater, and as "too big to fail" is still a possibility, I'm afraid that the next crash is going to make what happened in 2007 look like child's play.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 1:50PM
Also Steve, we do have data that result from the effects of these different policies and tax rates, and that data is used by economists to measure the effects.

But if as you say, that "Nobody can prove what effect these various measures have" then why do they keep saying cutting taxes decreases the deficit and grows the economy, when the data shows the opposite is true? I think its just a cover for an ideological position, disguised as economics.


Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 1:53PM
@Brotha Clark, I donít quite agree. If you have to have a track record than why are there start up programs in the first place. Then no one would get the funding they needed for a start up loan. Youíre supposed to walk into a bank, have a great concept, a great written business plan and some collateral and bam, but thatís not the case anymore.
What we as African Americans donít understand, and I donít know if this applies today, but at the time I got my grants and loans for my salon, I didnít know about certain minority programs that were funded by the government, for people just like me (woman, African American,black) and without my accountant (the greatest accountant in the world) having done her homework I would not have known. The crazy thing about the programs were, if the money that being allocated wasnít used by a given date, the money then went to other programs or to white counterparts.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 3:25PM
anita moore
Anita, this is not me saying how it should be, but how it is. I don't agree with respect to how some venture capitalists work either.

Another way to put what I am saying, at least from my experience with this, is that the venture capitalist route tends to be about who you know, i.e. "track record." You can have the greatest idea in the world, and a tight business plan, but if you don't know the right people who can vouch for you, forget it.

Again, this is not me saying how it should be, but how it is. And this is the reason why there was a need for the SBA, because funding sources like venture capitalists and even traditional ones like banks would not always take proposals on face value.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 4:30PM
But Irma, President Obama just extended our stay in Afghanistan. Who is going to stop the madness, if neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will?
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 4:36PM
Steve Williams
And Anita, if you can find a partner who is a vet, that helps too.
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 4:38PM
Steve Williams
@Brotha Clarke, my mistake. I thought those were your views, but yes youíre right. Thatís the way it should be, but of course its not.
@Brotha Steve, you are right, but the problem with partners is this. You donít have complete control. You always have to confer with your partner. My Vet SBA advisor tried to advise me against taking on a partner when I first opened my salon and I didnít listen and had to endure my first 5 years of my salon ownership with a good for nothing partner who did nothing to contribute except collect. My advice to anyone starting a business, if taking on a partner, make sure that person is a goal oriented person or at least on the same level, financially & mentally. Make sure they will come to the table with equal qualifications. It is a burden carrying someone.

Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 5:27PM
anita moore
Anita, that's it right there, the key is the team. Most of my career was in a team environment, corporate. It took about 13 years before I found the right team, but wow! when I did, it was off the charts!
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 6:06PM
Steve Williams
http://blackinamerica.com/cgi-bin/blog.cgi?blog_id=188965
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 6:32PM
DAVID JOHNSON
Sista Irma you are just too much. If our president doesn't get himself together and fight these Republicans where they stand, a lot of us won't see a christmas or any other holiday for a long time to come. Oh did anyone here, the owner of wikileaks is wanted and suspected of molestation, which he denies and says its a set up for him to shut up. Looking for the story now. By to the issue. The democrats are going to have to force the vote to the floor and make the republicans show their true colors.
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 7:50PM
anita moore
AMEN! Can't wait. C-Span here I come!
Wednesday, December 1st 2010 at 9:38PM
anita moore
I have a question. Are the majority in this country left right or center?
Thursday, December 2nd 2010 at 8:20AM
Steve Williams
My answer is center. So why do we allow ourselves to be pushed to the left or right?
Thursday, December 2nd 2010 at 8:22AM
Steve Williams
Because if you don't take a stand, the right will take over. I do tend to go to the center, but when Democrats try to do that, the Republicans feel they have a victory and want full control as they are now doing. They pretend to sit down to the table, but have no intention of compromising, and that the left right back over to the left. Being Center only means you have no loyalty to either side and they can bounce back and forth and sway public opinion. In my opinion thats the easy way out and only for commitment phobic people. If you stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Thursday, December 2nd 2010 at 8:37AM
anita moore
@Steve, the last thing I want to be is considered as being "rich" / above the legal -moral laws, even if I did not have to pay taxes. lol ...

"I" am enjoying my life as someone who does not want nor do I expect someone to do any more for me than I am willing to do for my self, in my duty with my one vote a direct part of the u.s. government that is of , for and by the people...(smile)

@ President B.H.O., "where have you been the last two years" ? (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
@ America...this statement by a leading Republican at that summitt, I admit I found facinating...no PRICELESS...

"The president has Admited taht he has not done enough to reach out to us..."...

ONLY IN AMERICA. (NUP)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
@Clark, looking at the position taht the right has ended up in as a result of just saying "N-O", they would be utter fools to CHANGE now. (nup for teh Dems)(the Rep are smiling all the way to the bank with those lobby find raises the so, so deserve)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
Here is some of a lecture we got in a socialogy class by our professor...

He said if the rich man were to pay his housekeeper at his salary rates then his wife would not be able to do all of taht volunteer work s, shoping, going to spa or bridge with the girls but would have to remain at home raising their children, doing the house work, cooking, and maybe making their clothes ect. because of the extra money paid to her/him as housekeeper.(smile)

or in other words, we all must help to balance things out, we just tend to not look at life this way. As in truth, reality and actually how each and every one of us is due respect just for being members of teh human race.(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...iwthout poor there be no rich...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
@Steve anyone ever collect the $million for proving taht they paid more incomtaxes than their sectrary? any things like tis ever hit us in teh real world about who pays taxes...and by the way Steve now that the democrats are not in as much power as theywere how much of the military, pentogan budget will get cut...or how long will we be borrowing .4o cents of every dollar we spend from China...now how much was taht that the rich in congress got in millions just for having a farm and not planting any thing or doing any work on them at all?????

ok steve...I am waiting fo ran answer on tis Legal tings....? (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...we can not get any place if we continue to ignore each other now can we...anyway Steve, my husband alway as have done my taxes as I have no idea how to understand them. But , "I" do know enough to not do anything to make the government spend millions to collect a few pennies from me.

NOw if we were talking about helping people in the grips of some of teh countless abuses of the tax man then that is more up my alley of expertes. ((smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
ONLY IN AMERICA..do we insist on mentioning fOrmer pres.Regan endlessly and never ever mention how he raised taxes "11 TIMES"!!!...

lol along with PALIN FOR PRESIDENT 2012 ...(SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...and, not to mention...jobs exported, the $$$4 billion that Haliburton just only had to say theycan't find it...how much money poUred into Iraq still to make it safe for China to get all of the oil it needs from Iraq at tHis very moment...

how much being borrowered from ChinA to send to Afgan and Palistan this week, this month...

and, I repeat...BRAINWAShINGS WORK IN aMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

palin for president in 2012...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
I do hope that this what I just heard on both CNN & MSNBC fits this topic...they were discussing why is it not our president in states like Mich. having a cup of coffee with the unemployed wh o will not be getting an unemployment check for Christmas toys- dinner...and here teh Repubicans are already out in front telling the American citizens taht right after Christmas they will be facing a cut in pay and a tax incerese???...

then it hit home to me something I have yet heard one politican say about this tax cut creates jobs by the upper 2%...

how many of those jobs outsourced were not out sourced by the upper 2% ????????????!!!!!!!on top of all of those tax avoiding monies just disclosed in Switzerland banks????Oh, that's right it did not cause a mass media frenzy now did it??????????????????

"I" don't know about you but right now Wikileaks is looking like a blessing for us in our resistance to do our own home work on what has caused this CONTINUINGS disasters in our country as far as main street is concerned...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
...oops as it is now looking like the right is going to shut down the federal government we can all take a break on discussing any of the now three political party system in America. (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
You are so correct Anita and we will see them finally going into action tomorrow in the senate...can't wait to see them voting on the floor tomorrow on C-Span for permenant tax cuts for the middle class or not...it is a great first step...

and it seem tha tin the House they are gearing up to not allow any Christmas break at all to allow teh right-wingers to show just how seriously they take their need to filibuster....I now have some hope that they are finally listening to the main street calling for the Left to get a back bone!!! (smile)

now it looks like the need to blaim our president for what the right are not willing to do such as act like they were sent there to do more than just say "NO"!!! (smile)

@ Mr. President, you now have two options left open for you...LEAD OR FOLLOW THE REPUBLICANS AS THEY TRY TO EAT THE TEAPARTY ALIVE, THE NEXT TWO YEARS...LOL
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
Please Login To Post Comments...
Email:
Password:

 
More From This Author
Scholarship Book For "C" Average Students‏
Black Biz Hookup - Discounts From Black-Owned Businesses
A Message From Michelle Obama"
Black Church Leaders Support Obama's Healthcare Reform
Women Fighting for Love Like Losers-"Anna Renee Is Still Talking"
Shaq's New Girlfriend Nikki Alexander
Actress Regina King Dating Malcolm Jamal Warner
Stephanie Seymour's Son Slams the Haters Over Mom Smooch
Forward This Blog Entry!
Blogs Home

(Advertise Here)
New Members
>> more | invite 
Latest Jobs
Licensed Therapist-Smyrna and McMinnville Campus with Motlow State Community College in Tullahoma, TN.
Internal Auditor - Wealth Managment with Truist Financial Corporation in Charlotte, NC.
Graduate Assistantships with Boston University Department of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance in Boston, MA.
Sr. Public Relations Specialist with EmblemHealth in New York, NY.
2021 Finance Intern with Five9 in SAN RAMON, CA.
>> more | add
Employer Showcase
>> more | add