What am I missing???
We have and will give Haiti $1,500,000,000.00 and there is nothing to show for it. The people are still
wondering around just like before the earthquake only now they are in tents. And we want to hand out more
money while we are FREEZING SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS. Is that just stupid or is
there an anti-senior bias showing up in this???
And our aid to 'terrorists' countries like palistine is another several BILLION DOLLARS we are not giving to
our senior citizens.
Then there is the way we figure inflation. In my world, the following items have gone up in this year:
Bread
Milk
Eggs
Meats
Every Vegetable
Electricity
Heating oil
NAtural gas
Gasoline
Insurance premiums for auto, health, housing, and even medicare premiums
Rent
Real Estate Taxes
State Taxes
Sales Taxes
Medicines - over the counter and prescriptions
All these things make up a part of the expenses of a senior citizen as well as working people's expenses.
So why isn't the CPI (The Inflation Factor) going up???
The main reason is home prices. The second reason is home prices. And the third reason is home prices.
Home prices need to be taken out of the CPI, in my opinion.
BUT, Most seniors are living in a world where their cost of living will increase by anywhere from a minimum
of TEN PERCENT (10%) to TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%). The government thinks it's OK to FREEZE the
SOCIAL SECURITY FOR our seniors - while THEY GIVE AWAY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
TO PERKS FOR CONGRESS PERSONS AND FOREIGN PEOPLE.
That is absolutely UNAMERICAN. These congress persons need to get their priorities correct. The CITIZENS
OF THE UNITED STATES COME FIRST WHEN HANDING OUT OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I say reduce and eliminate foreign aid and give it to our citizens.
Does anyone beside me think that China and Japan need to step up their giving and increase their foreign aid ?
The CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE THE TOP PRIORITY FOR ALL OUR SPENDING AND GIVING PLANS.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Unions - pros and cons
When the Industrial Revolution was beginning, men with dreams and guts created industries. These industries ran on large amounts of labor. People would labor 12 hours a day for 6 days a week for their pay. And if they were not always working or came in late, they were docked pay. These were part of the working conditions.
Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.
The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.
Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.
Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.
As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.
Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.
In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.
For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.
The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.
The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"
In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.
The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.
In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Alone came some terrible tragedies - some accidents and mostly fires. Those were the events that gave rise to unions. Mine workers, mercantile laborers and later the factory laborers. Every death showed the flaws in managements style of running a company. People were replaceable and there were more people then jobs.
The laborer had no individual power. Prime ground to develop a union. At first unions fought for better working conditions and more reasonable pay with shorter hours. These concepts came directly out of the owner's profits. And these were the underlying and opposing factions with different agendas.
Move into todays world and unions for the most part have only one objective - to grow at any cost and to demand more of anything at any cost. While the owners (Now stockholders) and management have to show the stockholders a quarterly increase in profit.
Instead of reducing the difference between the highest hourly wage earner and the highest management, CEO, labor (Read the Unions) and management are at odds in how to make the most profit.
As a wage earner, why should they care about the profits of the company? For one reason, their jobs exist because there are profits. But the resentment between the people who make the products and the people who manage the workers just is too strong for a graceful and healthy co-existence. Step in the Unions and the lawyers for management.
Sometimes the unions go on strike. Nobody wins in this case. And sometimes the company goes under in a strike. Then all the workers and management lose their jobs. Personally, I find this end result the most outrageous event. People willing to argue until the death of the company and the loss of everyones' income.
In a more 'charitable world', there would be a limit to the difference between say the highest wage earner and the CEO. And everyone would know that difference. The hope would be that upper management would want to increase the highest wage rate to allow for higher salaries for management, Just does not work out that way.
WHY? Because there are usually many more wage earners than management. Do the math and you soon begin to realize why companies want to buy other companies.
For example: two companies with 200 and 350 employees each merge. The resultant company ends up with maybe 400 employees and only a few less number of management. BUT the savings from this example is the loss of 150 jobs. That means more revenue goes to the bottom line. The consumers who purchase the products of the new combined company get no savings - just the company's bottom line.
The result are bonuses for most of the management and 150 families without their breadwinner. And now the State will provide )at taxpayer's expense) unemployment compensation and food stamps.
The union workers on average make more than non-union laborers. But at a price of the productivity of any company. The union work rules stifle cooperation between job descriptions. You hear a lot of "It's not my area" in a union shop. Or you hear, "Hey! slow down. Are you trying to ruin it for everyone!"
In the end, unions are for the most part just as bad as the managements they oppose. They use their power to get more wages when they are already getting the highest wages in their industry. CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) has the highest wages in the entire industry, yet they demand higher wages. Teachers work less hours today with fewer students and produce poorer results than teachers in the 1950's. Teachers in the 1950 made the smallest profession salaries. Today, teachers make some of the highest salaries. YET, the teacher's union wants more pay and smaller class rooms without guaranteeing any improvement in graduating more student who can read and do simple math. In these cases, the unions have outlived their usefulness.
Now consider miners. The unions have a big part to play towards increasing safety in the mines.
The auto factories of yesterday had employee wage growth that destroyed the United States auto industry. Yet until the factories closed, the unions were fighting for higher salaries and benefits. Made no sense. And it drove the auto manufactures into foreign countries to produce the cars.
In summary, unions are good when safety issues need to be increased or wages are too low. Unions hurt the workers and the economy when their members begin to make too much compared to the cost of foreign production and shipping.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Friday, October 8, 2010
What is a Republican
Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican. His platform was in part about limited government and state's rights.
And he was fiscally conservative. Right out of the frontier mid-west, the Republican party won against the "Whigs" and the Democratic parties; just like today with the Tea Party who are trying to re-establish conservative values back into politics while strengthening states rights. Limited government is another trade mark of Republicans and the Tea Party.
Why is that good? The power to tax is mighty tempting to CHEAT. Think about the recent obama health care bill.
There was not enough votes to pass it. SO what did the government with part of the 787 BILLION bail-out funds do? The government used OUR MONEY TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO A YES. They did this in secret. Remember the cameras watching Senator's reed's closed door where all the Democrats were being bribed behind closed doors without any transparency. (Another major obama lie)
I'll bet a lot of the 787 BILLION (which still has Billions unaccounted for) is being used to fund Democratic November races. This is called a SLUSH FUND made up of our money being used to encourage "takers" to vote for continuing the obama 'change'. (Taking from the workers to pay for the slackers)
And what is that change looking like??? Let's see. Government now control the finance part of our economy - that's the banks and brokerages. Government now controls two car companies with more than a hint that they will allow a Chinese company to take over one of OUR CAR Companies. Imagine. We just borrowed Billions and Billions to shore up our car companies to allow a foreign company to reap the profits. And not just any foreign country. It's the country that has RIGGED IT CURRENCY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW OWES CHINA BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. This is an outrage!!!
So would a Republican do any of this? No No NO!. A republican wants smaller government and less control of the economy. That way, the economy is free to grow organically the way it has since the first settlements landed here.
The Republicans want fiscal and personal responsibility of every citizen. That means every citizen needs to speak American English, pay their taxes and obey the laws. Of course Republican understand that "things" happen to people and that is why Republicans give to charity four to one compared to Democrats. (IRS statistics)
There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch. Somebody, somehow has to pay for the 'free' lunch. When you give money, food stamps, health care for 'free', somebody has to pay for it. It's only 'free' to the people who are on the receiving end. That money comes out of a general tax revenue fund.
Now if the general tax revenue fund could increase, then more money could be available for "free" items like
social security and health care. BUT, even Greece is becoming more fiscally responsible than the obama budget busting plan. Did I say "obama budget?" I must of mis-spoke. The Democrats did not create a budget this year. Why? Because they were too scared that the true numbers would scare everyone to vote out the Democrats this Nov 2 election.
So what is a Republican? Someone with Fiscal and Conservative Values who believes that the citizens know best how to grow the economy and who want to reduce the size of the government and it's budget.
Which person is the better citizen? - being a taker or the one paying taxes?
Next topic - UNIONS - pros & cons
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
And he was fiscally conservative. Right out of the frontier mid-west, the Republican party won against the "Whigs" and the Democratic parties; just like today with the Tea Party who are trying to re-establish conservative values back into politics while strengthening states rights. Limited government is another trade mark of Republicans and the Tea Party.
Why is that good? The power to tax is mighty tempting to CHEAT. Think about the recent obama health care bill.
There was not enough votes to pass it. SO what did the government with part of the 787 BILLION bail-out funds do? The government used OUR MONEY TO BRIBE CONGRESSPERSONS TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE TO A YES. They did this in secret. Remember the cameras watching Senator's reed's closed door where all the Democrats were being bribed behind closed doors without any transparency. (Another major obama lie)
I'll bet a lot of the 787 BILLION (which still has Billions unaccounted for) is being used to fund Democratic November races. This is called a SLUSH FUND made up of our money being used to encourage "takers" to vote for continuing the obama 'change'. (Taking from the workers to pay for the slackers)
And what is that change looking like??? Let's see. Government now control the finance part of our economy - that's the banks and brokerages. Government now controls two car companies with more than a hint that they will allow a Chinese company to take over one of OUR CAR Companies. Imagine. We just borrowed Billions and Billions to shore up our car companies to allow a foreign company to reap the profits. And not just any foreign country. It's the country that has RIGGED IT CURRENCY SO THAT THE UNITED STATES NOW OWES CHINA BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN BALANCE OF PAYMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES. This is an outrage!!!
So would a Republican do any of this? No No NO!. A republican wants smaller government and less control of the economy. That way, the economy is free to grow organically the way it has since the first settlements landed here.
The Republicans want fiscal and personal responsibility of every citizen. That means every citizen needs to speak American English, pay their taxes and obey the laws. Of course Republican understand that "things" happen to people and that is why Republicans give to charity four to one compared to Democrats. (IRS statistics)
There is no such thing as a 'free' lunch. Somebody, somehow has to pay for the 'free' lunch. When you give money, food stamps, health care for 'free', somebody has to pay for it. It's only 'free' to the people who are on the receiving end. That money comes out of a general tax revenue fund.
Now if the general tax revenue fund could increase, then more money could be available for "free" items like
social security and health care. BUT, even Greece is becoming more fiscally responsible than the obama budget busting plan. Did I say "obama budget?" I must of mis-spoke. The Democrats did not create a budget this year. Why? Because they were too scared that the true numbers would scare everyone to vote out the Democrats this Nov 2 election.
So what is a Republican? Someone with Fiscal and Conservative Values who believes that the citizens know best how to grow the economy and who want to reduce the size of the government and it's budget.
Which person is the better citizen? - being a taker or the one paying taxes?
Next topic - UNIONS - pros & cons
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)