Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Auto bailout....
According to Forbes: Labor cost per hour, wages and benefits for hourly workers.
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U. S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph. D., and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.
What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school diploma, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a PhD.
Then there's the "Job Bank"
When a D3 (Detroit 3 carmaker) lays an employee off, that employee continues to receive all benefits - medical, retirement, etc., etc., PLUS an hourly wage of $31/hour.
Here's a typical story....
Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a. m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I just sit." Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers as demanded by the United Auto Workers Union - UAW - as part of an extraordinary job security agreement.
Now the D3 wants Joe Taxpayer to pick up this tab in a $25 Billion bailout package - soon to be increased to $45 Billion if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have their way.
The "Big 3" want this money - not to build better autos. No. They want it to pay the tab for Medical and Retirement benefits for RETIRED auto workers. Not ONE PENNY would be used to make them more competitive, or to improve the quality of their cars.
We ALL have problems paying for our Medical Insurance - but the Democrat leaders in Congress now want us to pay the Medical Insurance premiums of folks who have RETIRED from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Not a good deal for us.
How about Chapter 11 - and getting rid of these ridiculous union contracts?
Ford: $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM: $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler: $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U. S.): $48.00 ($96,000 per year)
According to AAUP and IES, the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973 (average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).
Bottom Line: The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph. D., and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota, Honda or Nissan.
Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three, must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs.
What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school diploma, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a PhD.
Then there's the "Job Bank"
When a D3 (Detroit 3 carmaker) lays an employee off, that employee continues to receive all benefits - medical, retirement, etc., etc., PLUS an hourly wage of $31/hour.
Here's a typical story....
Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a. m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I just sit." Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers as demanded by the United Auto Workers Union - UAW - as part of an extraordinary job security agreement.
Now the D3 wants Joe Taxpayer to pick up this tab in a $25 Billion bailout package - soon to be increased to $45 Billion if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have their way.
The "Big 3" want this money - not to build better autos. No. They want it to pay the tab for Medical and Retirement benefits for RETIRED auto workers. Not ONE PENNY would be used to make them more competitive, or to improve the quality of their cars.
We ALL have problems paying for our Medical Insurance - but the Democrat leaders in Congress now want us to pay the Medical Insurance premiums of folks who have RETIRED from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Not a good deal for us.
How about Chapter 11 - and getting rid of these ridiculous union contracts?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Why we should have a national language....
I don't have a problem with spanish speakers, I went to the Dominican Republic for two years and learned the language while I was there. I didn't expect the people there to speak english. I knew that I had to spanish because I was in their country. If people of different countries come to our country they should have to learn our language. We may not have an official language for this reason we should have petition our representatives and request we have a national language instituted in our country!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Well it is the day of the big game......
My two week fast will end tommorrow with a win over Utah!!!! Just kidding, no, but seriously I'm done with my fast! Anyways here is to hoping we win tommorrow and make it three years in a row!!!!
I saw this and thought it was hilarious!!!!!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Problem I have with the Republicans....
Yeah you did not expect to see that from me. I thought I would post the probelm that I have with the Republican Party, in a form of being bi-partisan.
While the Republican Party genreally does oppose abortion, which I agreee with them on this issue, I feel that they do not do enough to help those who do not abort the baby and do proceed with having a baby. I feel that if the Republican Party is going to oppose abortion they need to support greater programs to help and aid women who are going to have these children. I don't feel that there should be monetary aid given to these individuals because of the mere fact that by doing so you would only encourage women to get pregnant for monetary gain. Example being Welfare, were many women have kids on purpose so that they receive an additional check in the mail. Also there are many programs that if the person is going to give the child up for adoption will cover the costs of the pregnancy.
Speaking of these programs I feel that they do help out but there are not enough ways to help. There should be more programs (and the existing programs to receive greater funding) to aid and help these individuals along the process. I also feel that there are many religious institutions that help out these young pregnant women. I feel that they should receive state or federal funding when it comes to helping these adoption agencies such as LDS Family Services. Also there are many state adoption agencies that help young women find homes for their babies when they themselves are not able to provide for their kids.
There are many young women that do decide to keep their babies and that is their decision. I feel that if these young women do want to continue with their education that there should be some kind of program that would allow a daycare service to take care of their kids while they continue their education. This aid would only continue if they maintained a certain grade point average. Also I would make sure that these women received child support from the father of these children. From my understanding enforcing child support varies from state to state. I would like to see it enforced on a national level. I would also have programs that would assist these women find jobs upon completion of their education. I personally would like to see these women do some form of community service to repay the aid they received, such as talking with the youth in the city about avoiding teen pregnancy or other forms of community service.
The goal is to help these young women from having to depend on a welfare check to survive. We need to help them, help themselves so that they can take part in benefit the communities they live in.
While the Republican Party genreally does oppose abortion, which I agreee with them on this issue, I feel that they do not do enough to help those who do not abort the baby and do proceed with having a baby. I feel that if the Republican Party is going to oppose abortion they need to support greater programs to help and aid women who are going to have these children. I don't feel that there should be monetary aid given to these individuals because of the mere fact that by doing so you would only encourage women to get pregnant for monetary gain. Example being Welfare, were many women have kids on purpose so that they receive an additional check in the mail. Also there are many programs that if the person is going to give the child up for adoption will cover the costs of the pregnancy.
Speaking of these programs I feel that they do help out but there are not enough ways to help. There should be more programs (and the existing programs to receive greater funding) to aid and help these individuals along the process. I also feel that there are many religious institutions that help out these young pregnant women. I feel that they should receive state or federal funding when it comes to helping these adoption agencies such as LDS Family Services. Also there are many state adoption agencies that help young women find homes for their babies when they themselves are not able to provide for their kids.
There are many young women that do decide to keep their babies and that is their decision. I feel that if these young women do want to continue with their education that there should be some kind of program that would allow a daycare service to take care of their kids while they continue their education. This aid would only continue if they maintained a certain grade point average. Also I would make sure that these women received child support from the father of these children. From my understanding enforcing child support varies from state to state. I would like to see it enforced on a national level. I would also have programs that would assist these women find jobs upon completion of their education. I personally would like to see these women do some form of community service to repay the aid they received, such as talking with the youth in the city about avoiding teen pregnancy or other forms of community service.
The goal is to help these young women from having to depend on a welfare check to survive. We need to help them, help themselves so that they can take part in benefit the communities they live in.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Change....really?
Barrack Obama's headline was about change. Really? Well Joe Biden really isn't change is he? I mean he has been a senator for the last twenty some years. That seems like the same old politics to me. Also Barrack Obama stated he will name, Rahm Emmanuel, as his chief of staff. Wasn't he and top aide in the Clinton administation? Yes he was, not really change I was expecting...... Many other individuals that are being considered for Obama's cabinet positions were with the Clinton administration as well. Tell me what you think.....am I wrong in my line of thinking?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Who's at fault for this economic problems???
I received this email and thought it was great. Enjoy!
It isn't often that public outrage peaks so close to an election, but this is a rare moment in history when "we the people" can exact a price from the political leadership that has duped, scammed and lied to them, contributing mightily to the current financial mess.
At the Senate Banking Committee hearings Tuesday, Democrats, led by Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, seemed to think the mortgage crisis, aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and other disasters, occurred on someone else's watch. Dodd, joined by ranking Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, criticized what he said was the ad hoc nature of the government's response to the financial crisis and complained that the Bush administration's proposals lack detail.
Some history is important. It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify. They mostly wanted to promote not only new home ownership numbers, but also more home ownership in the minority community. That was a noble goal, but the cost
turned out to be too high.
Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. "We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late.
It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. Dodd said the crisis was "entirely foreseeable and preventable." Then why didn't he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he's the Senate's no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.
I'm not one to say that the Democrats are the only one who are at fault. I'm sure there are a number of people on both sides. But I do find it is quite interesting that some of the largest congressmen to benefit from Fannie May and Freddie Mac are Democrat and one of them wants to be the next President!
It isn't often that public outrage peaks so close to an election, but this is a rare moment in history when "we the people" can exact a price from the political leadership that has duped, scammed and lied to them, contributing mightily to the current financial mess.
At the Senate Banking Committee hearings Tuesday, Democrats, led by Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut, seemed to think the mortgage crisis, aided and abetted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and other disasters, occurred on someone else's watch. Dodd, joined by ranking Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, criticized what he said was the ad hoc nature of the government's response to the financial crisis and complained that the Bush administration's proposals lack detail.
Some history is important. It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify. They mostly wanted to promote not only new home ownership numbers, but also more home ownership in the minority community. That was a noble goal, but the cost
turned out to be too high.
Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in
financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity." As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. "We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late.
It is an affront to the nation that some of the people who brought on the crisis (and financially and politically benefited from the status quo) were asking the questions at the Banking Committee hearing. They should have been in the witness chair. Dodd said the crisis was "entirely foreseeable and preventable." Then why didn't he try to prevent it? He should have been answering questions about the PAC contributions he received from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (according to opensecrets.org, he's the Senate's no. 1 recipient of campaign contributions, $133,900, Barack Obama is no. 3, $105,849), his sweetheart Countrywide Financial mortgage rate and whether they influenced his inattentiveness to the growing mortgage crisis.
I'm not one to say that the Democrats are the only one who are at fault. I'm sure there are a number of people on both sides. But I do find it is quite interesting that some of the largest congressmen to benefit from Fannie May and Freddie Mac are Democrat and one of them wants to be the next President!
Friday, September 19, 2008
How liberal the media is today...
Recently I watched the Republican National Convention and flipped through the different stations to see what type of commentary they were saying about. It was frustrating to listen to the commentators at NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and CNN. It just felt like they weren't being impartial in there journalistic approach. Keith Obermann was the worst appologizing to the TV for the video tribute to the surviviors of 9/11. It was so bad that he was demoted to a analyst instead of being the main commentator.
He really is such an idiot by the way. During his show he falsely accused Sara Palin of the following,
"After apparently taking erroneous information from the far-left-leaning website ThinkProgress on Tuesday to falsely accuse Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of slashing her state's Special Olympics budget, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called the governor a liar in a rant with potential ties to a Daily Kos posting hours earlier." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/18/olbermann-uses-false-information-daily-kos-smear-palin
The fact is that she did not slash the funding but incresed it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/17/olbermann-echoes-thinkprogress-lies-smear-palin
That wasn't bad enough but the media has been vicious towards Sara Palin. I understand that people are going to critic her and thats fine because she was the one who put herself in the publics eyes. However when people start attacking her pregnant daughter that crosses the line. Sure Obama stated that family is off limits, but that isn't going to stop the media, who makes it no secret that they want Obama, from attacking her daughter. I have Sirius radio and occasionaly listen to the Left Channel, which is the liberal talk show station, to see what they are talking about and it was unreal what the commentators were saying about her daughter.
Also there was the Charlie Gibson interview. Again I understand that he needs to be impartial in his interview to not show bias. Also I understand that he was going to ask the hard questions that people wanted to know. But he was so far left in his approach. I felt like he was trying to trick or badger her to say something that would negatively affect her.
I'm sure I'll go more into this topic with greater sources to back up what I'm saying but its just so obvious to me that the major news anchors are in Obama corner and doing all they can to help him and convince the public that he is the man to vote for.
He really is such an idiot by the way. During his show he falsely accused Sara Palin of the following,
"After apparently taking erroneous information from the far-left-leaning website ThinkProgress on Tuesday to falsely accuse Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of slashing her state's Special Olympics budget, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called the governor a liar in a rant with potential ties to a Daily Kos posting hours earlier." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/18/olbermann-uses-false-information-daily-kos-smear-palin
The fact is that she did not slash the funding but incresed it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/17/olbermann-echoes-thinkprogress-lies-smear-palin
That wasn't bad enough but the media has been vicious towards Sara Palin. I understand that people are going to critic her and thats fine because she was the one who put herself in the publics eyes. However when people start attacking her pregnant daughter that crosses the line. Sure Obama stated that family is off limits, but that isn't going to stop the media, who makes it no secret that they want Obama, from attacking her daughter. I have Sirius radio and occasionaly listen to the Left Channel, which is the liberal talk show station, to see what they are talking about and it was unreal what the commentators were saying about her daughter.
Also there was the Charlie Gibson interview. Again I understand that he needs to be impartial in his interview to not show bias. Also I understand that he was going to ask the hard questions that people wanted to know. But he was so far left in his approach. I felt like he was trying to trick or badger her to say something that would negatively affect her.
I'm sure I'll go more into this topic with greater sources to back up what I'm saying but its just so obvious to me that the major news anchors are in Obama corner and doing all they can to help him and convince the public that he is the man to vote for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
