At the rate the world is creating new babies and with more people living longer, the world's population will soon reach 10,000,000,000 - That's TEN BILLION people. And you say - so what!!!
All these ten billion people will need fresh water. The world is short of fresh water now at population 7,500,000,000
All these ten billion people will need food. The world is short of farm land now at population 7,500,000,000. A major drought would starve hundreds of millions of people in one year. and if the drought lasted for three or more years, the population would continue to shrink to under a billion. That means 6,500,000,000,000 (Six hundred Billion Five hundred million) people would die from starvation.
Many of these ten billion people will need fish. The world's oceans are straining to feed the world's demand now at population 7,500,000,000.
In our lifetimes, the world will find itself without fresh water, grains and fish. Forget OIL. Forget the hoax of global warming. IT'S STARVATION that will bring down all the world's countries.
Think about it. In a major flood, tornado, cyclone, hurricane, snow storm the ability to move food and have fresh water is significantly reduced for a time. Just imagine if the workers to load the ships with grain starved or the truck drivers starved or any of the transportation workers were starving and could not work. The entire world's population would be at risk. This is what will happen if we continue to be non-responsible and have more than 2 babies per family.
We need to begin to reduce the world's population BEFORE a major strain is put on the world's fresh water and food supply. While there are many things I disagree on with the way Chine treats its citizens, China is being wonderfully responsible in reducing its population with its one child per family policy. India and other over-populated countries should adopt the same policy of one child per family.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Over Population and JOBS
Have you wondered how over a hundred thousand Egyptians can protest evert day? Don't they have jobs to go to? The answer is that Egypt has over 30% unemployment. And that's for unskilled to college educated Egyptians.
When you consider the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE USA IS AROUND 20% or 60,000,000 people.
(((THAT'S SIXTY MILLION USA CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED.))) - when you consider these numbers, it's a wonder that the USA does not follow Greece and Egypt in national street protests against the government's failed policies.
We know the obama will stay in Office for about 20+ months and the Senate is still obama's boys. The House's new Republicans or Tea Party representatives have to lead strongly to cut excess spending and reduced the debt by 10 Billion to 20 Billion dollars a year for several years.
If we don't, there is nothing to stop future inflation, the de-valuation of the dollar and possible the dollar being replaced by some other currency or basket of currencies as the standard unit of money.
What will that mean to the USA??? For one, the price of oil will jump by 50% to 100% or more. That one factor will severely hurt the US's economy. The airlines will either raise rates or go out of business or be nationalized. If the airline customers cannot afford to travel, the tourist industry will begin to decline. If oil doubles, the price of gasoline will triple. And that means all item that need to be transported whether by truck or train will become much more expensive. And that means consumerism will drop and that means a depression worst than the 1930's.
So you see why it is imperative that we cut the over spending and reduce the US debt in large enough amounts each year. And we need congress to stop screwing with the people and do what is right for the citizens of the United States. Congress people need to put the needs of the country above their individual needs. Congress needs to cut over spending. And do it in the very next budget.
The alternative is just too horrible to think about.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
When you consider the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN THE USA IS AROUND 20% or 60,000,000 people.
(((THAT'S SIXTY MILLION USA CITIZENS ARE UNEMPLOYED.))) - when you consider these numbers, it's a wonder that the USA does not follow Greece and Egypt in national street protests against the government's failed policies.
We know the obama will stay in Office for about 20+ months and the Senate is still obama's boys. The House's new Republicans or Tea Party representatives have to lead strongly to cut excess spending and reduced the debt by 10 Billion to 20 Billion dollars a year for several years.
If we don't, there is nothing to stop future inflation, the de-valuation of the dollar and possible the dollar being replaced by some other currency or basket of currencies as the standard unit of money.
What will that mean to the USA??? For one, the price of oil will jump by 50% to 100% or more. That one factor will severely hurt the US's economy. The airlines will either raise rates or go out of business or be nationalized. If the airline customers cannot afford to travel, the tourist industry will begin to decline. If oil doubles, the price of gasoline will triple. And that means all item that need to be transported whether by truck or train will become much more expensive. And that means consumerism will drop and that means a depression worst than the 1930's.
So you see why it is imperative that we cut the over spending and reduce the US debt in large enough amounts each year. And we need congress to stop screwing with the people and do what is right for the citizens of the United States. Congress people need to put the needs of the country above their individual needs. Congress needs to cut over spending. And do it in the very next budget.
The alternative is just too horrible to think about.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Over Population and JOBS
When people have more than one or two babies and when people have babies under the age of 20, the 'FUTURE WAVE" of potential job applicants increases faster than the ability of the United States or the world to create jobs.
Let's look at this in today's reality. There are fewer places to get jobs. When some employers announce future hiring of a few jobs -even a 100 new job- several thousand job applicants form lines a day in advance. To me this suggests that those people willing to work have no place to work.
It also says that there are just too many people in the job working years. WHY? Because families are having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or more babies. This shows to me that people in general have no concept of social responsibility to the community. If they did, they would not be populating like ignorant animals without any concern for their ability to provide for these "extra" children and no concern about where there children will ever find work.
When the population increases at 200,000 babies or more a week, and the current job market is at best creating between 35,000 to 150,000 jobs per month increasing the reality that new babies will never be able to find a job. Even if our economy were to create 500,000 or 750,000 new jobs per month, we would still be creating many more babies than potential jobs. The same for all countries.
So wise up my fellow American citizens and plan babies after age 25 and only have one or two babies.
And this goes for the world in general as well. Begin to reduce population now or there will never be enough jobs anywhere for anyone who wants to work.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Let's look at this in today's reality. There are fewer places to get jobs. When some employers announce future hiring of a few jobs -even a 100 new job- several thousand job applicants form lines a day in advance. To me this suggests that those people willing to work have no place to work.
It also says that there are just too many people in the job working years. WHY? Because families are having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or more babies. This shows to me that people in general have no concept of social responsibility to the community. If they did, they would not be populating like ignorant animals without any concern for their ability to provide for these "extra" children and no concern about where there children will ever find work.
When the population increases at 200,000 babies or more a week, and the current job market is at best creating between 35,000 to 150,000 jobs per month increasing the reality that new babies will never be able to find a job. Even if our economy were to create 500,000 or 750,000 new jobs per month, we would still be creating many more babies than potential jobs. The same for all countries.
So wise up my fellow American citizens and plan babies after age 25 and only have one or two babies.
And this goes for the world in general as well. Begin to reduce population now or there will never be enough jobs anywhere for anyone who wants to work.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Schools and learning
Have you ever wondered why the children of the 1950's and 1960's were so extremely smart? Think about it for a moment. The classrooms were 6 rows of 8 seats per row and mostly filled. The teachers were underpaid. The books were old. There was no free lunch for the students. Milk was distributed in the elementary grades but the students paid for their milk. The lessons were the same year in and year out. Grammar school student had hourly changes in subject matter. Tests were given every Friday and there were unannounced tests at any moment.
So how did these children learn???
For one important reason. The basics were drilled into them by rote. Math. Reading. Spelling. Geography. And in the later years of grammar school, political sciences and CIVICS. What was CIVICS. Every student had to know how our government worked. How an idea was forwarded into a bill and how a bill became a law. In fact, every student in my grammar school dreaded the final CIVICS test. WHY? Because the only way a student could graduate into high school was to pass the CIVICS test. Fail the test - no matter how good your grades and you did not graduate.
So what did the students of the 1950's and the 1950's have that student today with all their computers and "new thinking" not have? These students had to learn their lessons by rote. Repeating and repeating them until they learned to spell, read, do math, and write. It was not difficult. Just took time and the real possibility that failure was not an option.
A student studied because there was consequences if you did not meet at least a "C" in all subjects. Failing meant being held back. No one wanted that - even to "cool" kids or the "tough guys". Everyone wanted to graduate out of grammar and high schools.
And what happened. Most students graduated and were able to enter college without having to take remedial classes to "catch-up" with all the other students in college. And even those students that for whatever reason did not go on to college were able to read and do math and think logically. That is totally unlike the majority of the students of today - as proven by the world's rate of 23rd in math, science and reading out of all nations.
So the solution is simple. Get back to rote and test, test, test. Make keeping up with the rest of the students a positive social thing. Stop paying students to go to school. Stop rewarding bad behavior.
Rote is best for everyone - no matter what you want to be in life. Rote will give everyone the basics. Rote will create a baseline of minimum knowledge for all students and raise all people up.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
So how did these children learn???
For one important reason. The basics were drilled into them by rote. Math. Reading. Spelling. Geography. And in the later years of grammar school, political sciences and CIVICS. What was CIVICS. Every student had to know how our government worked. How an idea was forwarded into a bill and how a bill became a law. In fact, every student in my grammar school dreaded the final CIVICS test. WHY? Because the only way a student could graduate into high school was to pass the CIVICS test. Fail the test - no matter how good your grades and you did not graduate.
So what did the students of the 1950's and the 1950's have that student today with all their computers and "new thinking" not have? These students had to learn their lessons by rote. Repeating and repeating them until they learned to spell, read, do math, and write. It was not difficult. Just took time and the real possibility that failure was not an option.
A student studied because there was consequences if you did not meet at least a "C" in all subjects. Failing meant being held back. No one wanted that - even to "cool" kids or the "tough guys". Everyone wanted to graduate out of grammar and high schools.
And what happened. Most students graduated and were able to enter college without having to take remedial classes to "catch-up" with all the other students in college. And even those students that for whatever reason did not go on to college were able to read and do math and think logically. That is totally unlike the majority of the students of today - as proven by the world's rate of 23rd in math, science and reading out of all nations.
So the solution is simple. Get back to rote and test, test, test. Make keeping up with the rest of the students a positive social thing. Stop paying students to go to school. Stop rewarding bad behavior.
Rote is best for everyone - no matter what you want to be in life. Rote will give everyone the basics. Rote will create a baseline of minimum knowledge for all students and raise all people up.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Employment figures and the government's figuring
We all know someone who lost a job, been downsized and cannot find a job in a similar industry or salary level.
I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.
Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.
Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending
So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."
The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.
We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.
The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????
Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.
WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
I BELIEVE the unemployment figure of 9% is just plain FAKE. First of all, i understand that it takes an increase of 150,000 new jobs to drop the unemployment level by one tenth of a percent. That's 0.1%. That would be like going from 9.4% to 9.3%.
Then the government's own figure state that only 36,000 new jobs were created. No one knows how many were full time jobs in the private sector or government jobs. BUT new 36,000 jobs is NOT ENOUGH to reduce the 9.4% level to 9.0%.
So you know someone is playing loose with the math.
Then there are the tens of millions of unemployed whose benefits have run out. These people are NOT COUNTED in the unemployment figure. With tens of millions of NOT COUNTED UNEMPLOYED, the REAL UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBER IS MORE LIKE 17% TO 19%. With quick math the suggests that 60,000,000 are unemployed. SIXTY MILLION PEOPLE. Something is wrong here and it's our government's wasteful spending
So you see why I believe they are "fudging the unemployment numbers."
The obama stimulus failed. Admit it and let's do something different. It's crazy thinking to continue to do the same thing and expect different results. To get different results, you need to change what you were doing. IT IS THAT SIMPLE.
Where are potential jobs??? In the private sector - not in creating government featherbedding or government patronage jobs at unbelievable high salaries. That's the Chicago way and it does not work for Chicago (except for the politicians in power in Chicago) and it will not work for the United States Government.
We need to foster an environment for people to become self-employed. This is where the new jobs will come from; not from government directed and funded future businesses that have not even been created yet.
The government believes you will think that more jobs are being created than actually are by creating fake and lower unemployment numbers. The government is trying to "pull the wool over your eyes." You do not let this happen in your normal life, why would you ever allow the government to do this to you now??????
Demand government cut over-spending.
Demand government reduce the spending budget - not freeze it at these high levels.
Look out for yourself or the budget will grow and the only alternative will be for the government to DE-VALUE THE DOLLAR AND REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 10 OLD DOLLARS. MAYBE EVEN REPLACE THE DOLLAR WITH A NEW DDOLLLLARR AT 1 DDOLLLARR FOR EVERY 100 OLD DOLLARS.
WHERE WOULD YOU BE THEN??? BROKE !!!! THAT'S WHERE.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Overpopulation - How it affects your schools
Over Population costs you real money- directly - it's money out of your pocket. HOW? Because the cities have to raise your property taxes to pay for the extra teachers and new schools. Why all the extra schools and teachers?
Let's look at these three examples:
#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.
#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.
#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.
There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Let's look at these three examples:
#1) When the average family has three or more children, that means there will be a future 'wave' in their local school of over-crowding of students. That has several implications. Teachers demand smaller classroom sizes. Therefore, more teachers are needed to handle extra children in small classes. Then as the student population "wave" builds up, new schools need to be built. This is paid for by local taxes - mostly real estate taxes.
#2) When children under 18 have babies, the stress on the schools is dramatic. This also increases the student population and the same scenario in number one occurs. Also, by children under 18 having babies, this also affects the generation timetable. The lower age that children begin having babies, the shorter the generation time and the more crowded the schools become. This increases the Future "Wave" of children in schools.
#3) The best scenario is that on average all families have 1 or 2 children and begin having children after age 25. WHY? This reduces the "wave" of future students on the schools and reduces class sizes and reduces the need to build more schools and helps teachers give more attention to each student in their classes.
There is a POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMMUNITY to wait to have children until AFTER AGE 25 AND THERE IS A POSITIVE FINANCIAL OUTCOME TO ALL FAMILIES. It's a WIN-WIN future.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Friday, February 4, 2011
Over Population and Freedom
When has Egypt ever rose up from the people and demanded Freedom - ever? For the last 5,000 years, the people of Egypt have been ruled by dictators. And for most of that time, most of the Egyptians were slaves, beggars or a few middle class merchants. But has there ever been an uprising for Freedom?
Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later
So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?
And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.
It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Think about the Magna Carter signing in 1215 AD in England. That was a first cry for Freedom that I am aware of and it was from the Princes and Lords NOT the general public. The first cry for Freedom from the public was in 1776 in the New United States of America. And again in India under Gandhi's rule over a hundred years later
So my question is: Why are the Egyptian people now in the streets? Who is really behind these rallies?
And why are so many people able to stay in the streets for so many straight days. The answer is that there are no jobs in Egypt. Is it the government's fault? Maybe some. But with the population soaring to 80,000,000+ and almost no industry, where does anyone think there will be jobs for all that want to work??? That is totally crazy thinking. The population of this country is too large for the potential business community to absorb. That goes for India and Mexico as well; and most of South America.
It is time to start decreasing the world's population before we run out of land to farm and fish in the oceans.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Over Population and Unrest in the World
When a country has run-a-way population, the strains on its economy will bring down the economy or bring down freedom. Simple rule. With too many mouths to feed and no jobs, people will just 'mill around' in the streets all day. As they say: "Idle hands are the hands of the devil."
By that I mean, if you have 15% or 20% or 25% or more young people unemployed and mostly uneducated and unskilled, you have the makings of trouble. With a group like this, it is a simple matter to focus this group on unrest. Whether it's for more food or a job, the unrest can bring down a government.
That is why a "One-Baby-Per-Woman" is a concept whose time has come. A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the strain on families to provide the basics for their child. "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will ease the need for a government to provide basic food for its population. As the population reduces, and the strain on families reduces through A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept and the country will find itself in a better financial position.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce unemployment.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need for food imports
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce starvation
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to destroy "old Forests" for farmland.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to build more schools
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the governments' costs in every country
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will provide for a country's stable social and economic well being
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept is a concept the entire world needs to embrace NOW!!!.
And That's The Way I See It...
Straight Talk WIth Jay Clifford
By that I mean, if you have 15% or 20% or 25% or more young people unemployed and mostly uneducated and unskilled, you have the makings of trouble. With a group like this, it is a simple matter to focus this group on unrest. Whether it's for more food or a job, the unrest can bring down a government.
That is why a "One-Baby-Per-Woman" is a concept whose time has come. A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the strain on families to provide the basics for their child. "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will ease the need for a government to provide basic food for its population. As the population reduces, and the strain on families reduces through A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept and the country will find itself in a better financial position.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce unemployment.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need for food imports
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce starvation
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to destroy "old Forests" for farmland.
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the need to build more schools
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will reduce the governments' costs in every country
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept will provide for a country's stable social and economic well being
A "One-Baby-Per-Woman" concept is a concept the entire world needs to embrace NOW!!!.
And That's The Way I See It...
Straight Talk WIth Jay Clifford
Saturday, January 29, 2011
World Population
The Earth is only so big and there are only so many acres of land to farm and there are only so many fish in the seas to catch --- to feed all the people. Face it World, there are too many people on Earth right now. We cannot feed all these people. Something has to be done or everyone will be at risk of not having enough fresh water and food.
It seems that the educated countries of the world have reduced their level of new babies. Even China has reduced it's new-born population. Now it's up to the rest of the world - specially the Middle East, Africa and South America and India most of all.
There is a reason people in those over-populated areas are always rioting and bringing down governments. They are mostly uneducated, underfeed or starving, and without jobs. Why no jobs? Because there never can be enough jobs for an over-populated world. Wake up world. The time to limit babies for everyone is now. One baby per woman and that's it.
By limiting women to one baby, the world's population will begin to reduce to a more sustainable level. With less people, there is less need for food and fresh water. With less people, there is less need to destroy "old forests". With less people, there can be jobs for everyone. With less people, every child will get more attention and less likely to commit crimes. With less people, every family can focus their money on just one child.
The people who say that we are taking the rights away from people by limiting every woman to one child, I say that is the responsibility of all people for the betterment of all the people to reduce the population in half over the next generation.
Having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or more babies is just not responsible. How can a poor family take care of all the needs of a multi-child family. On the other side, families that have the disposable income have to share the one baby per woman idea because they have the same responsibility as everyone else to work towards reducing the population.
And governments will find a one-baby-per-woman idea better for their citizens. Each country will then be able to create enough jobs for everyone. And each country will be able to feed and support education for everyone. An educated, feed and working society will be a stable society.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
It seems that the educated countries of the world have reduced their level of new babies. Even China has reduced it's new-born population. Now it's up to the rest of the world - specially the Middle East, Africa and South America and India most of all.
There is a reason people in those over-populated areas are always rioting and bringing down governments. They are mostly uneducated, underfeed or starving, and without jobs. Why no jobs? Because there never can be enough jobs for an over-populated world. Wake up world. The time to limit babies for everyone is now. One baby per woman and that's it.
By limiting women to one baby, the world's population will begin to reduce to a more sustainable level. With less people, there is less need for food and fresh water. With less people, there is less need to destroy "old forests". With less people, there can be jobs for everyone. With less people, every child will get more attention and less likely to commit crimes. With less people, every family can focus their money on just one child.
The people who say that we are taking the rights away from people by limiting every woman to one child, I say that is the responsibility of all people for the betterment of all the people to reduce the population in half over the next generation.
Having 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or more babies is just not responsible. How can a poor family take care of all the needs of a multi-child family. On the other side, families that have the disposable income have to share the one baby per woman idea because they have the same responsibility as everyone else to work towards reducing the population.
And governments will find a one-baby-per-woman idea better for their citizens. Each country will then be able to create enough jobs for everyone. And each country will be able to feed and support education for everyone. An educated, feed and working society will be a stable society.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Can A Leopard Change Their Spots
Tuesday's Jan 25th State of the Union speech will have obama telling everyone that his beliefs,
held for his lifetime, and the legislation he pushed through with "behind-the-closed-door-bribes" was all a mistake and now he "Sees The Light" and wants to go off in a new direction.
Can you believe him? I do not think so.
He will say whatever it takes to get him re-elected in 2012 so he can have the next 4 years without worrying about re-election and without worrying how many congresspersons he 'throws under the bus' to transform the United State of America into a 3rd rate, bankrupt, socialistic country.
Yes, the country needs jobs. Yes we need a change in the direction of the political winds.
Yes, people can change - after years of "seeing the light" and from years on the psychiatrist's couch.
BUT a leopard can never change their spots.
And neither can the core values of a dedicated socialists change into a capitalist over night.
I have zero trust in the person calling himself 'obama hussein'. Can you trust this man???
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
.
held for his lifetime, and the legislation he pushed through with "behind-the-closed-door-bribes" was all a mistake and now he "Sees The Light" and wants to go off in a new direction.
Can you believe him? I do not think so.
He will say whatever it takes to get him re-elected in 2012 so he can have the next 4 years without worrying about re-election and without worrying how many congresspersons he 'throws under the bus' to transform the United State of America into a 3rd rate, bankrupt, socialistic country.
Yes, the country needs jobs. Yes we need a change in the direction of the political winds.
Yes, people can change - after years of "seeing the light" and from years on the psychiatrist's couch.
BUT a leopard can never change their spots.
And neither can the core values of a dedicated socialists change into a capitalist over night.
I have zero trust in the person calling himself 'obama hussein'. Can you trust this man???
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
NPR Nat'l Public Radio Needs to be free
NPR or National Public Radio needs to be free.
Why Should NPR get govt money - Why should my tax dollars be used to support this radio statio? IF the station's mission is to spread FREEDOM over the world, that is OK by me. Then, this station needs to stay completely and always out of USA politics at home.
Since there is an agenda at NPR to spew one political side over another, and paid by tax money, this is offensive to me. That said, NPR needs to be OFF US PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. NPR needs to compete like every other radio station.
If this station continues to get involved in biased reporting of the US political scene, then they need to compete for their money like every other radio station and NOT GET ANY US TAXPAYER MONEY.
And that's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Why Should NPR get govt money - Why should my tax dollars be used to support this radio statio? IF the station's mission is to spread FREEDOM over the world, that is OK by me. Then, this station needs to stay completely and always out of USA politics at home.
Since there is an agenda at NPR to spew one political side over another, and paid by tax money, this is offensive to me. That said, NPR needs to be OFF US PUBLIC ASSISTANCE. NPR needs to compete like every other radio station.
If this station continues to get involved in biased reporting of the US political scene, then they need to compete for their money like every other radio station and NOT GET ANY US TAXPAYER MONEY.
And that's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Making nice in politics
Since President George Bush won his election, the Democrats have issued hate on any Republican everywhere they can find something to twist to make it sound like the Republicans are doing something wrong. OK Sometimes the Republicans did some things that are wrong in my view. BUT to have ABC & CBS & NBC & NPR & EVERY TALK SHOW HOST ON THESE TV STATIONS & The New York Times & The L.A. Times spewing hate at the Republicans ALL THE TIME for years and decades while the Democrats were in power and then when the DEMOCRATS LOSE THE ELECTION BECAUSE OF WHAT THE DEMOCRATS DID AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS TURN AROUND AND SAY - LET US MAKE NICE IS PURE BULL CRAP. The Democrats lost and now they want to change the rules that the Democrats have been playing with for decades to prevent the Republicans from using the same tactics - COME ON PUBLIC - OPEN YOUR EYES AT THIS DEMOCRATIC SMOKE SCREEN.
ONE FL congresswoman is one of the worst. Every word out of her mouth is hate with nothing about " DOING RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." And this FL Congresswoman is now calling for Republicans to watch what they say when she is one of the worst congresspersons for spewing hate.
WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S A POWER PLAY AND THE LOSERS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
And That's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
ONE FL congresswoman is one of the worst. Every word out of her mouth is hate with nothing about " DOING RIGHT BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." And this FL Congresswoman is now calling for Republicans to watch what they say when she is one of the worst congresspersons for spewing hate.
WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S A POWER PLAY AND THE LOSERS ARE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
And That's the Way I See It...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
GUN LAWS
I am in favor of allowing the public to have guns - period. One Democratic Senator last week SHOT one of two intruders in his house. What's so amazing about this ??? The Democratic Senator has been openly and forcefully in favor of restricting guns from the public. What a contradiction. The man has no conviction of his words. Some might even call him "two-faced". Is this hate speech - no way - It is simply telling the truth without any added inflammatory remarks - straight truth as reported in the news and the Senator's voting record.
So let us talk about gun control - Why should mentally ill people have the right to have guns? Good question.
But who will determine who is mentally ill and is this a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.
Maybe the answer lies in the community forgetting about "political correctness" - a term that reeks of racism, uniformity and exclusion. Maybe we should think about coming together as a community - like we used to - and report "unusual activity" to the principal or law enforcement. Maybe that in and of itself could reduce the violent crimes. By taking action now to help the youth make right decisions with their lives. Maybe there needs to be more boys & girls clubs to help children learn about the making good decisions and becoming responsible for their actions. Maybe these clubs can help to foster a 'second' family for children; giving these children the structure all children need and might be lacking in many homes.
So in summary - Every citizen must be able to keep firearms per the 1776 US Constitution. Secondly, we need to spend more money on helping the youth now before they develop into criminals or gang members. In the long run, this will save money and lives.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
So let us talk about gun control - Why should mentally ill people have the right to have guns? Good question.
But who will determine who is mentally ill and is this a slippery slope that we do not want to go down.
Maybe the answer lies in the community forgetting about "political correctness" - a term that reeks of racism, uniformity and exclusion. Maybe we should think about coming together as a community - like we used to - and report "unusual activity" to the principal or law enforcement. Maybe that in and of itself could reduce the violent crimes. By taking action now to help the youth make right decisions with their lives. Maybe there needs to be more boys & girls clubs to help children learn about the making good decisions and becoming responsible for their actions. Maybe these clubs can help to foster a 'second' family for children; giving these children the structure all children need and might be lacking in many homes.
So in summary - Every citizen must be able to keep firearms per the 1776 US Constitution. Secondly, we need to spend more money on helping the youth now before they develop into criminals or gang members. In the long run, this will save money and lives.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Monday, January 17, 2011
Making hay after the horse left the burning barn
All of a sudden, the Democrats want to mix the seating in the President's State of the Union speech.
And I have to ask WHY????? WHY ??????
The only reason I can come up with is because the Democrats do not want to show the public how many seats they lost in the last election.
Come on people. Has any Democrat changed his tune??? I do not think so. They are using this mixing of Republicans and Democrats seating idea for one and only one reason. They Democratic side will be very small if they all stay together. And they are afraid to show the public that they LOST THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE UNDERHANDED PASSING OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE AND THE WASTING OF $787,000,000,000 AND THE
CONCENTRATING OF POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN BACK-DOOR CHICAGO-STYLE DEALINGS AND BRIBINGS. AND NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE "CZARS" THAT HAVE POWER AND WERE NEVER ELECTED NOR VETTED BY CONGRESS - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE VETTED BY CONGRESS.
KEEP THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SEATING AS ITS BEEN FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS - SEPARATED.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
And I have to ask WHY????? WHY ??????
The only reason I can come up with is because the Democrats do not want to show the public how many seats they lost in the last election.
Come on people. Has any Democrat changed his tune??? I do not think so. They are using this mixing of Republicans and Democrats seating idea for one and only one reason. They Democratic side will be very small if they all stay together. And they are afraid to show the public that they LOST THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE UNDERHANDED PASSING OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE AND THE WASTING OF $787,000,000,000 AND THE
CONCENTRATING OF POWER IN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY IN BACK-DOOR CHICAGO-STYLE DEALINGS AND BRIBINGS. AND NEVER FORGET ABOUT THE "CZARS" THAT HAVE POWER AND WERE NEVER ELECTED NOR VETTED BY CONGRESS - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE VETTED BY CONGRESS.
KEEP THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SEATING AS ITS BEEN FOR THE LAST 200+ YEARS - SEPARATED.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Healthcare's decline
Just saw a TV Commercial for United Health Care. The man has Prostrate Cancer and
who does he get for his treatment under United Health Care ???
A RN - That's right a nurse, not a doctor or a cancer specialists - a nurse.
I am not taking anything away from nurses - It's just that you would expect to be treated
for Prostrate Cancer by a cancer doctor. That is obama health care in action -
Get used to it unless the congress can rescind and replace this terrible, terrible law that
will kill jobs, make doctors quit the profession and ration health care all while increasing
costs and your federal taxes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
who does he get for his treatment under United Health Care ???
A RN - That's right a nurse, not a doctor or a cancer specialists - a nurse.
I am not taking anything away from nurses - It's just that you would expect to be treated
for Prostrate Cancer by a cancer doctor. That is obama health care in action -
Get used to it unless the congress can rescind and replace this terrible, terrible law that
will kill jobs, make doctors quit the profession and ration health care all while increasing
costs and your federal taxes.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Black and White
At the risk of starting political straight talk, one of the 'soul' problems with the Black community began with President Lyndon Johnson and his legislation to "help" the Black people by creating WELFARE. Welfare in and of itself is not a bad thing. But the restrictions of government on who could receive welfare was the main destroyer of the Black culture and the Black family. Recipients of welfare - usually mothers - could not receive welfare IF there was a man living in the household. SO the smart thing to do in light of the free money (i.e.welfare) was to kick the Black man out of the house. This lead to a breakdown of the Black family. Any family without a father is more likely to see their children get into serious trouble with early pregnancy, drugs and gangs whatever their race.
Then along comes Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King whose agenda is to make money while pretending to help the Black people. If he truly wanted to help the Black people he would have used his organization to help all poor people. BUT Jackson made it clear in every way, that the only way his organization could make money was to focus on Black people at the expense of all poor people. This fostered worsening race relations - putting his organization in contradiction with its stated purpose.
So what do we do about the "race" problem? We can discuss alternatives in my next blog
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Then along comes Jesse Jackson after Martin Luther King whose agenda is to make money while pretending to help the Black people. If he truly wanted to help the Black people he would have used his organization to help all poor people. BUT Jackson made it clear in every way, that the only way his organization could make money was to focus on Black people at the expense of all poor people. This fostered worsening race relations - putting his organization in contradiction with its stated purpose.
So what do we do about the "race" problem? We can discuss alternatives in my next blog
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The obama thing
All people want is a government that will make it easy to plan for business growth and purchases. And with
the tax hike due Jan 1, 2011, why would anyone hire a new employee??? Add to that the obama health care
law which is raising premiums and limiting services while raising taxes now for services that will not be
available until 2014, it's no wonder that many of my clients are dropping health care completely for all their
employees. The premiums are just to expensive.
There is hope yet.
First, the tax hikes might be averted if the Democrats see the reasoning and sense of keeping taxes low.
While not raising taxes will raise the deficit at first, the economy will grow under lower tax rates and produce
increased tax revenues.
Second, there will be a call to rescind the obama health care bill. That was what the November election was
mostly about. Maybe all if it will not be rescinded. Let's hope that some major "FLAWS" in the 2000+ page
law that nobody has read nor could understand will be changed to reduce increased government employees
and costs to the tax payers.
Third, let's hope that the new House of Representatives can get some of the newly hired government
employees fired and the rest can get their salaries down to a more reasonable level. Why should
government employees with all their special health care and privileges get paid more than people in
the general public who have none of those special privileges???
There is hope that the government may yet begin to work for the people instead of cramming laws down
our throats and then expecting to raise taxes to pay for these laws. That is not how a free government
should work.
Remember Nov 2012 and vote out the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and maintain the Republican
house majority. Let's hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party can get together and put up a candidate
that can win against the obama in 2012
Who has a rational and sane thought? Let's hear from you
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
the tax hike due Jan 1, 2011, why would anyone hire a new employee??? Add to that the obama health care
law which is raising premiums and limiting services while raising taxes now for services that will not be
available until 2014, it's no wonder that many of my clients are dropping health care completely for all their
employees. The premiums are just to expensive.
There is hope yet.
First, the tax hikes might be averted if the Democrats see the reasoning and sense of keeping taxes low.
While not raising taxes will raise the deficit at first, the economy will grow under lower tax rates and produce
increased tax revenues.
Second, there will be a call to rescind the obama health care bill. That was what the November election was
mostly about. Maybe all if it will not be rescinded. Let's hope that some major "FLAWS" in the 2000+ page
law that nobody has read nor could understand will be changed to reduce increased government employees
and costs to the tax payers.
Third, let's hope that the new House of Representatives can get some of the newly hired government
employees fired and the rest can get their salaries down to a more reasonable level. Why should
government employees with all their special health care and privileges get paid more than people in
the general public who have none of those special privileges???
There is hope that the government may yet begin to work for the people instead of cramming laws down
our throats and then expecting to raise taxes to pay for these laws. That is not how a free government
should work.
Remember Nov 2012 and vote out the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and maintain the Republican
house majority. Let's hope that the Republicans and the Tea Party can get together and put up a candidate
that can win against the obama in 2012
Who has a rational and sane thought? Let's hear from you
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford.
Monday, October 18, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY FREEZE
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
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
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)