Bartlett Financial

I went there for a Mutual Fund. Instead they sold (dumb ol') me a scam.

Bartlett Financial Lexington SC

Multi Level Marketing is sold here called UFirst. Do your research carefully and DO NOT INVEST. Please learn from my and other mistakes. I was advised to buy into a multilevel marketing scheme for $3500. How is it good advice to buy into the Bartlett multilevel 'downstream' on a credit card for $3500, in order to get out of debt? The $3500 still sits on my credit card, and makes me ANGRY everyday at these guys. They use God and military service to sell a shameful and selfish product. Shameful. You can learn more about how to avoid UFIRST at: http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/07/09/ufirst-financial-this-is-what-a-collapsing-pyramid-looks-like/ http://www.canadian-money-advisor.ca/threadview/1238.html http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2010/07/20/ufirst-financial-software-users-jumping-ship/

The FIRST Thoughts for Thinkers Radio hour long show

Finally, the first show is here!

Click here to listen to 201012 TFTR First Show.wav

Thoughts For Thinkers Radio

So here is our first Thoughts for Thinkers Radio Podcast, let me know what you think!

You can just listen, you can download the file etc.

Please link to our blog, share the file with friends, post it, whatever!

Thoughts For Thinkers Radio

Exciting news folks! Thoughts for Thinkers Radio is coming! We are doing a podcast version that will be available for listening and downloading. This weekly show will cover the political stories of the week, and welcomes your calls and emails.

Just Letting you Know....

....About my new blog. One of the reasons i havent written in so long is because i bought another motorcycle, finally, and I've been riding it.

Please stop by my other blog if you have time...DISCIPLE MC

DID I SAY CHRISTIAN MOTORCYCLE CLUB? MOTORCYCLE CLUB?

DISCIPLE CMC

Im not really going to say anything about this one, just watch the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

Why I Don't Want a Government Car

In case you haven't been watching, the Obama administration has taken over GM and Chrysler with the helpful thought that these two companies should make "Greener" cars.  Cars that get 39 miles a gallon, and trucks that get 30 miles a gallon.  This development of technology, while quite useful, will be quite expensive for the automotive industry and you.  Average of about $1100 per car more.  But you have the money for that right?

This plan is a quiet way to make sure that American auto companies make smaller cars. Increasing the proportion of small cars that they make is the only way that the automotive companies can hit the targets. This is why the administration is forcing Chrysler to be sold into the hands of Fiat, abrogating hundreds of years of standing bankruptcy law, and flaunting it in the face of investors who had loaned Chrysler money against the assets that Chrysler had put up as collateral.  Wouldn't it be nice if you, dear reader, could simply decide that you don't want to pay your car payment anymore, but you want to keep your car.

The administration has made clear that they intend to force Americans to buy these wonderful "Greener" cars, by adding tax incentives, and subsidizing GM and Chrysler with giant amounts of your money.  The administration has to use tons of your money to do this for one simple fact: Americans don't want to drive little cars.  Let's review:

Pimps want to drive Escalade's, not escorts.

Soccer moms want to drive SUVs and minivans, not Malibu's.

Businessmen want to drive Lincoln town cars and Chrysler 300's, not Festiva's.

Families want four-door pickup trucks and station wagons, not too seated electric cars.

Let's be honest, the car is the status symbol for many people.  It's a practical tool.  You can't fit daddy, mommy, the two kids and a dog into a mini car.  Well you can, but no one wants to, and that's the point.

Even though he was in the Senate, Obama wasn't paying attention, he was busy campaigning for president for his two years in the Senate.  So he's apparently unaware that Congress has been forcing United States automakers to make smaller more fuel-efficient cars at a loss for several years.  Aware that Americans love big trucks and SUVs, Congress has put giant 25% tariffs on imported pickup trucks and SUVs, so the US auto companies can fight off competition, and make a profit on them.

So read this, Mr. President: I don't want a mini car.  I'm a 6 foot four 285 pound wall, and I have a hard time getting out of a car like that.  I don't want them, and neither does the rest of America, that's why we haven't been buying them.  And if we do buy them we don't buy the American ones because they're poorly made.  Instead of hassling the auto industry about higher fuel mileage, how about cutting the ridiculous wages they have to pay, that are way out of line with the rest of industry.  How about doing all the things that a competent CEO would do to make a company work, lower costs and make a better product. Seriously dude, you don't know anything about running an automotive company, you have no real world experience, youve always been a politician.  Your a slick politician and that's great.  But don't pretend you know what you're doing when it comes to running a company, you have no experience at that, and neither does the team that you've chosen to run the automotive industry.

Obama forcing these higher fuel mileage standards on the automotive industry now is akin to kicking somebody while they're down.  But after all, that's the time to kick them, when they can't defend themselves.

Sunshine Center for Implementers of Man Caused Disasters

In desperation to distance themselves from the "Failed Bush Policies" (many of which they still follow), our new administration has done some pretty silly new stuff that you need to know about.  And, as per usual, it's more about style than substance. 

Regarding the substance bit, our new administration intends to follow all the Bush policies in regards to the prosecution of the war on terror.  For instance President Obama still has the same rights to water-board detainees, and use other enhanced interrogation techniques, "at the discretion of the President".  Despite all the things that he says about it being torture, he can still authorize these techniques in the same manner that Bush could.  He intends to continue to detain the terrorists who are housed at Guantánamo Bay, he just wants to find somewhere else to put them.  He intends to continue using military tribunals, while making a big deal of the slight changes he is making to the tribunals. He intends to continue prosecuting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, just the same way, or actually even more vigorously since we intend to commit more troops.

But, it is in the style department that our dear new beloved president intends to distinguish himself.

Consider if you will the fact that the administration will no longer be referring to "The War on Terror".  Instead, those brave soldiers who are defending us from multiple attacks are involved in what the administration has turned as "Overseas Contingency Operations". Because, after all, we're not at war... or something.

Equally important is the fact that the administration will no longer refer to "Terrorism", but rather "Man Caused Disasters".  And no longer shall the United States administration refer to the folks who blow stuff up in order to kill civilians as "Terrorists". These folks shall now be known, by decree of the president, as "Implementers of Man Caused Disasters"

Folks, I wish I was making this stuff up.  But as usual, reality is stranger than fiction.

And now, I'm going to get silly.  If it is the desire of the Obama administration to cool the rhetoric around global extremism, there can be no doubt that they are succeeding.  The Taliban has announced through its spokesman that it will no longer refer to the chopping off the heads of Americans captured overseas as "Beheading".  Wanting to be part of the cooler heads that are prevailing, and more in line with the zeitgeist promoted by the Obama administration, "Beheading" will now be called "Redevelopment".  And no longer shall they refer to the act where they beat a teenage girl mercilesslyfor the simple crime of appearing without a head scarf , while holding her down as she screams, as "Flogging".  Instead this inhumane treatment shall be termed "Juvenile Assistance". And of course the Guantánamo Bay detention camp will be shut down, at the order of Obama.  It will be reopened the next day as "The Sunshine Center for Implementers of Man Caused Disasters". 

What a lot of foolishness.  Obama must learn that semantics are not the point.  The point is that we have folks who want to kill Americans, and that means we are at war with them.  That is by definition the term used when we send tens and hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to go stop evil. Leadership is not about words or smoke and mirrors.  It's about creating positive change.  And that's what we're waiting for.

I would like to give credit to the unnamed folks whose writing I had 

plagiarized and regurgitated to write this article.  I promise if I knew

 who you were I would give you credit.  Please feel free to write in, 

and I will do so.

The Age of the Induced Industrial Coma

Dear reader: in today's Wall Street Journal was an article I felt needed to be shared with you.  I hope they don't sue me for posting this entire article.  However for those of you who are not reading the Wall Street Journal on a regular basis (you should), I wanted you to have an opportunity to hear this interesting commentary. The original text of the article can be found at here.

 Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail

The age of the induced industrial coma.

 Studebaker, Nash-Kelvinator, Packard, Hudson, Stutz, Pierce-Arrow, Stanley, Checker and American Motors were once household names of the U.S. auto industry. Unlike General Motors in our time, they were not too big to fail.

Despite mergers and rescue efforts by their owners, each was shut down.

Their legacy lives on as classic cars, restored with erotic affection by collectors.

GM's end is different. In the spirit of the new age, General Motors, like Citigroup and AIG, will be kept alive in an industrial coma. One has to ask:

Is this where the entire country is headed? Since January, it looks like it is.

After GM's bondholders last weekend refused to answer the bell for another round with Uncle Sam, the White House put out a statement: "As a result, the President has deemed GM's plan viable and will be making available about $30 billion of additional federal assistance to support GM's restructuring plan."

Read that sentence again, slowly. It holds what look like the keywords of the American future: the president, deems, viable, making available, federal assistance, support, restructuring plan.

Last week's column in this space, "Obama vs. the Beach Boys," drew some responses from readers who thought its tone too nostalgic for a lost era of fast but inefficient cars with low mileage and high maintenance. Recognize and embrace the future, they said, which includes high-tech bikes and high-tech cars.

"Just pick up a copy of magazines like Euro Tuner or Import Tuner," said Thomas Alves, "and you will see many ads and articles about adding turbochargers, reprogramming engine management computers and the like to four cylinder engines. . . . California and Washington will try to kill and regulate, but the constant desire for innovation is still strong in this country, and there are more of us than there are of them."

Mr. Alves is right that the instinct to innovate lives on in America. The question is whether the innovators going forward will have an economy and system that gives them room to breathe, or whether the government's rescue of Old GM is the new paradigm.

So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.

Besides Obama Motors ($60 billion to $100 billion), there is Obama-Care for health insurance ($1.2 trillion over 10 years), the stimulus ($800 billion), a global-warming offensive called cap and trade that hopes to siphon hundreds of billions of dollars from the economy, and a fiscal year 2010 budget of $3.59 trillion. Out of these mists of federal "investment" they promise five million "green collar jobs." Only public-sector lifers could believe, or assert, anything so fantastic.

Then there is the never-ending march of the financial-rescue armies -- TARP, TALF, PIPP, EESA. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet stands at some $2 trillion and growing. Last week Treasury floated the possibility of a single financial regulator for the entire banking system.

All this is the Obama government's idea of innovation. It is all public sector because all any of them know is public sector.

Without exception, the Obama people with responsibility for the private economy come from a lifetime in politics, public administration or academia.

Besides Mr. Obama himself, the list includes Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, EPA's Lisa Jackson (16 years with EPA), Commerce's Gary Locke (zero private experience), or Transportation's Ray LaHood (14 years in the House). The bio for Agriculture's Tom Vilsack says he "has served in the public sector at nearly every level of government." How can the private sector -- especially the world of risk capital, sweat equity and start-ups

-- be anything but an abstraction for this group?

Many of Mr. Obama's supporters surely thought this young, dynamic generation of public leaders would elevate the hip, cutting edge of the U.S. economy -- nanotechnology, genomics, robotics, even health and medicine technology.

Instead, we've gotten the Old Economy on dialysis. General Motors has been commanded to restart aging UAW factories to output product on behalf of the administration's hybrid-car obsession. Where's the New Economy in any of this?

Or ObamaCare. How will a build-out of Medicare (b. 1965) to cover everyone and costing $1.2 trillion over 10 years not kill innovation in medical and health technology by siphoning away growth capital and its potential financial rewards?

All of this seems so out of sync with the persona and promise Barack Obama conveyed in the campaign. A lot of his Web-based supporters probably thought Mr. Obama was going to be about promoting young guns with new ideas seeking risk capital for the next big thing. Instead, it looks as if the Obama years will be about managing soft landings for mature industries and old unions in the American autumn.

Congress is talking about a "bad behavior" tax on beer and soda pop to reduce obesity and fund mega-Medicare. How about a bad-behavior tax on government? Slim as the president looks, Uncle Sam is looking like quite the fat boy.

Write to henninger@wsj.com 

">Listen to Daniel Henninger's podcast.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum 

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

The Power Of Conviction

In a recent post entitled "Obama's Change Can Change Quickly", I pointed out how fickle our dear new president can be. But that's to be expected, he's a politician. Forgive me for forgetting. For eight years we dealt with a president who took a position and stood by it. Whether or not people liked it. That is the power of conviction.

As the poet wrote, you gotta stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. That could be the problem. I understand the presidency is a figurehead position, but it shouldn't be a puppet position, jerked around on the strings of public emotion. It's interesting to see our current puppet...er, president, stand up at Notre Dame and talk about finding common ground between the pro-life and abortion camps. Especially when, truth be told, this is from a guy who consistently voted an even more militant stance, killing live, breathing babies who survived an abortion, than even other Democratic congressman from the state of Illinois would vote. Sounds like someone on the campaign trail to me. Someone who will say one thing when talking to the crowd in San Francisco, and the complete opposite when talking to the crowd in Iowa. I hope that being a smooth talking liar is not what Americans want from a politician. But I fear.

So here we go again, as our beloved puppet falls for anything, and signs a silly presidential resolution in his first few days, promising to close Guantánamo in a year. Nice. You sure appeased all the people who listened to you on the campaign trail talk about the failed policies of your predecessor, and how wrong it is to detain people without giving them the rights we so dearly cherish. After all, (sarcastically speaking) you needn't be a citizen of the United States to receive the protections of our Constitution. You don't even need to be an illegal alien who manages to have a baby in the United States. You don't even need to be a Colombian drug lord who manages to get arrested in the United States. You don't even need to be in America, you simply need to shoot at an American soldier as he does his job defending freedom overseas. Yes, (sarcastically speaking) that action alone should transport some terrorist from the despot like rule they grew up under, into the utopia of the American Constitution, and defense lawyers. And Obama wants to announce his release of terrorists and other people like that, without ANY PLAN for what to do with them. Maybe we can put them in an American prison. Yay. Good one. Genius. Turns out the Democratic lead congress cant even believe the President, and instead voted not to fund his one year program. Pretty bad when even your friends wont help you out with your bad ideas.

Again and again, Obama's change is changing quickly. Like any good politician, with his thumb in the wind, our puppet reacts to the pulling of the strings. Well at least he does that, at least he's listening. Now all of a sudden it's not a good idea to release pictures the ACLU wants in their witch-hunt of American soldiers doing their best to obtain information from folks who were trying to kill Americans. Obama reverses himself again last week, finally admitting that his policy would cost American soldiers lives. Oh, and now all of a sudden we need a plan of where to put the detainees who, by golly, are trying to kill Americans, and no other country wants to accept. Who would've guessed? Guess it takes more than a little show of signing a presidential directive doesn't it? Oh, and I guess Bush wasn't wrong on the military tribunal thing either. After all the incindiary things Obama said on the campaign trail, he's going to reverse himself, go ahead and do the same damn thing, military tribunals to try folks who attempted to kill American soldiers (as it should be). But will Obama have the grace to apologize for his mistakes and misleading statements?  Well, no. Apologizing is something else Bush did, so it must be bad.   

Dear reader, I guess I live in the real world. In my world, my wife, my family, my employees, and my customers all expect me to say things that I've thought out. Things that make sense. Things that I believe in. They don't expect me to change my mind tomorrow, constantly, on every issue. After all, I only get so many chances to be a father to my daughter. I only get so many chances with my wife before she would lose trust in me. My employees look to me for leadership, and wouldn't respect waffling, vacillating, and thumb in the wind syndrome. And my customers, most of those I only get one shot with.

Our President needs to get off the campaign trail. It's time to shut up and stop the rhetoric.  Less news conferences and more learning about the issues, sir. Charm, charisma and slick speech are not leadership. False flags and red herrings only work for so long. Following the leader as he makes one mistake after another and turns around to "lead" in the opposite direction after all, well, it makes you dizzy.  

Leadership is thinking things through, making a wise decision, and standing by it. Without this, America can fall from her position of moral and economic authority. Our friends, allies and those around the world who look to us as icons, can lose respect. And what happens then?

 

Why You Have to Cut Your Household Budget, and the Government Doesn't.

If you are anything like the average American these days, you are counting your pennies. The average American is taking a pay cut, their working hours have been cut, jobs have been lost. Unemployment is rampant, some counties here in South Carolina are way over the 20% unemployment mark. Foreclosures are up, people are losing their homes, their cars are being repossessed, its not pretty. The stock market tanked, 401k's are decimated, its official, we are in a recession.

 

So, the average folks, wise beings that they are, are reacting. They are being smart, paying off credit cards, eating out less often, and going without. Americans are buying less expensive clothes, cutting the cable bill to the cheapest service, and canceling yard care expenses. Americans get it, times are tough, its time to spend less, and save more.

 

Except for our do nothing, Democrat led Congress. While average Americans are taking pay cuts and cutting costs, the Congress voted themselves a pay increase for this year. Nice. I see you guys get it. Oh, and thanks for voting yourselves a significant increase in the amount you are allowed to claim as "expenses". Americans should not only give you a raise, but buy you lunch and limo rides more often. That's awesome. I wish I could vote myself a raise, and a bigger expense report too. Hell, I wanna limo ride too, if Im paying for you to take one.

 

And Obama? While he is living it up in limos and servants, does he keep it real to the street, and pay tribute to the little guy? Nope. Screw the little guy. While Americans scrimp and save to get by, Obama raises the federal budget from $2 trillion to $3.6 trillion, increasing spending and the deficit hugely. In other words, while most Americans don't have money to shop, Obama goes on a spending spree. While most Americans are desperate to pay of their credit, Obama is running America's credit with foreign governments up. Nice, I see you get it too.

 

And who gets to pay for this giant spending increase? Why of course, you, the little guy. I wish I could vote myself a nice new credit card and have you pay for it. And pay for it we will.

 

Why do Obama and his cronies in the Congress do this? Because they were trained to. In all the public service textbooks, only one solution is pointed to, when there is a budget shortfall. The textbooks only list one action when government spending gets higher that what the American taxpayer is providing. And what is that answer? Raise taxes. The textbooks never say to cut spending. So YOU, dear reader, should cut spending when you make less money, in fact you HAVE to. But the government should NEVER cut spending, sarcastically speaking.

 

So about Obama's plan that he learned, does raising taxes make more money for the government? If history repeats itself (and I hear it does), the answer is no. California raised taxes a few years back, and did that make California more money? No. Instead large numbers of businesses left California, and now California has a $40 billion budget shortfall, because as all these businesses left, all their tax revenue left too. Ditto New Jersey, read up and educate yourself on that one. The same thing happens not just to states, but to federal governments. Enter the exodus of American manufacturers, who can easily set up shop in Mexico, China or Eastern Europe. But I mean hey, if Obama and his henchmen in Congress are trying to drive more American businesses overseas, they have the right plan.

 

The point is that Obama simply cannot nearly double the federal budget without raising taxes. If you need a car, and you only make enough money, dear reader, to buy a $10k used Honda, you simply cannot go out and buy a $18k used Mercedes. Well you can, but there's a name for that. Foolishness.

 

And I fear that's we have in our current crop of elected leaders.

 

How the Unions Screwed the Auto Companies (And Will Continue To)

 In our brave new global manufacturing world, those who travel the globe have an interesting perspective to manufacturing and the costs associated. For instance, warehouses in Mexico, China, India, Hungary and the USA all look remarkably alike. They all use the same yellow forklifts, made by the same company. They all have some form of green and orange painted steel pallet racking, where pallets of automotive parts are stacked all the way to the ceiling. The concrete floors are nearly identical, as are the steel roll up dock doors, and the trucks that are parked as they are unloaded. The folks that are driving the forklifts, and doing the work may look different, but they are much the same, and they do much the same job.

The massive disparity is only seen when you go outside the factory, and you see the houses in which the workers live.

For instance, in Mexico, the government builds housing outside of the maquiladoras (factories) for the workers. In an effort to draw companies to Mexico, modern looking concrete tenements are in place outside of many of the factories, and many folks have cars and some of the trappings of the Western world.  

 Not so in China where few own cars, and most take public transportation to the ghettos of corrugated aluminum housing where they live. Some are lucky enough to have dormitory like housing in the factory where they work.  

In India, many ride bicycles to the huts constructed of mud that they call home.  

In Hungary, the wood from the discarded pallets thrown out of the back of the factory as trash, can be seen in the construction of the houses where the workers live. 

In South Carolina where I live, the average forklift driver wage is in the $9-$12 an hour range. Folks may have older cars, and often live in single wide trailers out in the country.

All these folks do the same job as the union autoworkers. So how do the autoworkers live?

Let's take Randy for an example. He's been with the union 14 years. His aggregate salary is $76 an hour, when all benefits and perks are included. In some cases he's paid overtime after working only five hours in a single day. He lives in a 2500 ft.² brick house, has a summer cottage up north, a nice 23 foot boat, a nice motorcycle and drives an Escalade. In another 16 years, at the age of 48, he will be able to retire with nearly a full income, and full medical and dental benefits at little or no cost to him. Like most of his coworkers who have retired, he is likely to take a job to "supplement" his income. If he is caught being late repeatedly, showing up drunk or high at work, has low production, makes a lot of mistakes, his company cannot fire him. He gets raises regardless of his production or performance,  and if his company goes through hard times  and needs to lay him off, he will likely draw full benefits and wages.  Hard for an automaker to save costs in tough times that way. 

When it comes time for his company to negotiate new wages, he will vociferously fight to retain or even gain more compensation than he already has. He will likely cite Henry Ford as saying that the workers should be able to afford the vehicles they make. No matter if Henry was referring to an Escort rather than an Escalade.

All this, when Randy has a high school diploma, and no more education or ability than the workers doing the same job in other parts of the USA or the world.

Non-US auto companies, and manufacturers of all kinds across the USA, are paying fair wages (aggregate $20-$30 an hour) to folks who are doing the same work as Randy is for $76 an hour. In Mexico the same kind of worker makes four dollars an hour. In China, four dollars a day. And Randy is campaigning and complaining about his $76 an hour.   

In other companies competent managers push for higher productivity and increased pay to incentivize good workers. But the unions do not allow such "nonsense", instead pushing for less production for the same pay, setting limits for production during an full workday and forcing promotions for even low producing workers. In other companies employees buy into productivity, quality products and competition, in the union making it to retirement with as little work as possible is the motive, and your job pays the same if you make a quality product or not, and whether you make a lot of it during your eight hours or not. 

Which brings up the issue of productivity.  Truck drivers to deliver to union auto plants become frustrated by the obtuse regulations that govern how slowly the UAW can do its job.  At most non-union facilities, you pull your truck with him into a loading dock, and a forklift driver will look at your paperwork, quickly and efficiently unload your truck and sign the paperwork. The process should take no longer than an hour, by one person.  

But in the union plant there are hoops to be jumped through to ensure that all sorts of people who don't have anything to do are given a piece of the pie. A truck driver will first have to find the office where the paperwork should be turned in. Usually this paperwork person is on break, so the truck driver has to wait 15 minutes to an hour just to find out what dock they should pull into. When the truck is finally in the dock, a forklift driver may not unload the truck. You see, the dock plate is hydraulic, and is operated by pushing a button. This complex task can only be accomplished by an "engineer" from the electricians union. And guess what, the "engineer" is on break. Another 15 minute to an hour wait while the "engineer" is located, and comes cruising up slowly on his three wheeled bicycle. His work is easily accomplished in 30 seconds, he pushes and holds the green button that lowers the hydraulic dock plate into place. This complex job being done he wheels away to sit in an office and do nothing until someone else needs him.  

Now finally after all this time a forklift driver is allowed to enter the truck. But does this forklift driver move quickly? No, there is no incentive for him to move quickly. The slower he goes the better off for him. I have quite literally seen forklift drivers creep at a slow crawl that enables them to stretch a one hour load into four hours. When asked why, they will honestly answer that they are paid by the hour and there is no point in going faster. Now comes the charade of the "engineer" being summoned to make the 15 minute trip from across the plant to do his thirty second job again. And of course the paperwork person who is required to sign off what the forklift driver unloaded is on break for lunch again. Four to eight hour waits are not unusual for truck drivers delivering to union auto facilities, an infuriating fact for those who are paid by the load, not by the hour, and know that an hour at most is needed.

Extrapolate this small picture of UAW inefficiency on one truckload of materials being delivered, into hundreds of trucks per day.  Or into thousands of vehicles made on assembly lines using this slow unproductive approach by frankly lazy union workers desperate to keep and protect their job rather than to keep their company productive and profitable.  How can I stretch the four hours of work I have, into the eight hours it needs to be so I can keep my job? 

Look, the unions had a good effect on the system 75 years ago when low wages and worker abuse were the norm. No one disputes they were necessary then. There was nothing wrong with Americans leading the way to a prosperous and happy middle class.

So its high time now that they take a look at the reality felt across the rest of the world now.  The UAW workers should understand the incredulity and anger toward the UAW that all the other Americans have across the USA who do the same damn thing for a living. They should understand that there are many Americans who have little or no sympathy for this whining of the union workers who are now being forced to give "concessions" that "lower" them to a new level of employment still far above most American workers. Really, who do these uneducated folks holding $76 an hour day labor jobs that should pay $12 an hour thing they are?

Other companies are slashing workforce, cutting salaries and benefits, and asking workers for more production in an effort to be profitable. But the UAW provides a foolish charade that they are making "concessions". What deep cuts are they taking? That overtime be paid after 40 hours a week on site, like all other Americans. Oh, wow, like, that was really a big one, good job guys. Lets see some serious cuts brought to the table, wage reductions bringing them into line with  what Americans in the rest of the country make, lets see some serious effort at incentivized pay for quality and production. Instead its more complaining about how bad they have it. Well go to India dude, and let me know how that makes you feel to see the same job done, with far better quality control than you have done, for so much less. If you want to make $76 an hour, go to college and make something of yourself. Be real.

In the Obama administrations view, the right thing to do is continue and empower this disastrous UAW model by turning 50% of Chrysler and GM over to the very entity that strangles it. Over the last 15 years, GM and Chrysler have been loaned over $36 Billion of cash by average Americans, and this has subsidized the losses caused by the UAW. Now the Obama administrations view is that all these people should walk away from the cash they put into Chrysler and GM, and just give it to the union workers. What insanity.

Until the UAW brings itself and its pay structure into line with reality, the companies it strangles will continue a slow choking death. Lets hope there is some change....

 

Please Stop Pointing out the Cover of People's Skin, When the Conversation Is about the Content of Their Character

While many Democrats and liberals may not understand this, for a conservative who closely follows politics, Barack Obama is a nightmare.  This is a man who stands for the killing of babies and consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being, believes in socialism and writes in his book that he sought out his Marxist professors, tries to portray the Bible in a controversial and questionable light (see his speech from Jun 28 2006), and has now appointed a judge who believes that prayers spoken before legislative sessions should not say “Jesus” or “Savior”. While these viewpoints may delight some, they are the antithesis of my beliefs, and those of many across the nation. I don't understand how any Christian or conservative could feel differently. 

However it's interesting to note that people of color are regularly suggesting that folks who do not agree with policies of Barack Obama are racist. 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best, that we should judge a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I understand and empathize with the deep feelings of emotion that people of color feel when they see our first black president.  In fact I believe that it's high time our country put our money where our mouth is when it comes to race and politics.  But as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. alluded, the color of the man's skin should not be the reason he is supported. 

I think that many have lost sight of this.  I have repeatedly heard African-Americans say that they voted for Obama because they wanted “someone that looked like them”.  Is this the right reasoning? I also repeatedly heard during the election that Obama would not win because “they aren't going to let a black man win”.  This was clearly an absurd statement, and did not reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans, black, white or otherwise. 

Recently my wife was discussing policy issues she does not agree with that the Obama administration holds, with a black friend.  It wasn't very far into the discussion when the question came up “is all this about 1 man/woman or is this a racist statement about a President that happens to be a Black man?” I was shocked.  If you are a diehard conservative, you are unlikely to ever support a liberal, and vice versa. 

America needs to regain focus here.  Other than an interesting historical fact, the color of Barack Obama’s skin really doesn't matter, except perhaps to a few radical people who either love or hate him because of the narrow viewpoint.  The rest of us need to come together and understand that it is the content of his character, the things that he does, the beliefs and viewpoints that he holds that can shape the destiny of this country in a very positive or very negative way. 

And for God's sake, please stop pointing out the cover of people's skin, when the conversation is about the content of their character.

Obama's "Change" Can Change Quickly

Today's world needs calm US leadership that shows a steady trusted hand. For instance, Russia and China are calling for the demise of the dollar, asking the IMF to create a new currency that will be the Global Standard. When it comes to a steady trusted hand, the Obama administration is letting us down. They are constantly flip flopping from one position to the other, showing that character and principle are not their guiding purpose. When the Bush administration took a stand, whether you agreed with it or not, you could be sure they were willing to ride the tide of public and global opinion to stand for their belief in what was right for America. Let’s look at how quickly our current administration drops its leadership ball:

 

Nailing the Soldiers: Last week the administration floated a plan to save $500 million a year on the cost of veterans insurance.  The idea was that if a veteran comes back from war wounded, and manages to get a job with private health insurance, that the Veterans Administration would bill the veterans private health insurance for the healthcare related to their war wounds.  Now I ask you, what hiring agent would give a job to a wounded veteran, if they knew it would drive up health insurance costs for the rest of the employees of the company?  Answer: none.  The administration demonstrated that it could not be trusted to think out the disastrous outcome of the plan in advance of scheduling them for review with Congress.  The outrage over this plan by the administration caused an immediate outcry from all angles.  Powerful Democrats in the Congress came out against the plan, questioning the administration's integrity toward veterans.  Showing a lack of principled integrity to his policy plans, the Obama administration came out the next day reversing this widely decried and unethical plan.  To cover the wound, Obama promise to stop the controversial Stop Loss program, effectively stealing credit from Robert Gates, who for six months has been suggesting an end to the program.  Or did someone think that overnight the administration could create their own plan that had been six months in the making?

 

War with Mexico: this month, the administration abrogated the NAFTA treaty, ignoring the requirements in it by canceling the Mexican Trucking Pilot Program, prompting Mexico to raise tariffs on $2.4 billion of US goods bound for Mexico, one of the four largest importers of American goods. This program showed real revenue savings for American companies who no longer had to pay extra fees at the border for good to be transferred from one truck to another, and allowed the Mexican or American truck to deliver the goods from the shipper to the consignee without interruption. Yo at u can read more about that HERE. Bowing to pressure from the Teamsters Union, the administration moved to hurt the US, make business more expensive for American companies, and broached the integrity of American signatories to the NAFTA treaty, citing safety concerns.  But this was an outright malfeasance that the administration tried to hide, burying it in the $400 billion omnibus spending bill, and making liars of themselves when it comes to being open and accountable.  If there were safety concerns, why not address them through the mediation program set up for NAFTA, that has been openly and accountably negotiated for years?  The truth was there were no safety concerns.  The Mexican truck program shown by the data compiled by the US Department of Transportation that the Mexican trucks coming into the US were safer, less likely to have accidents, better maintained, and met far more stringent safety requirements than the US trucks headed south of the border.  Indeed the Mexican trucks had a safety rating as high as or higher than any trucking company operating in the United States.  But the administration is showing that it doesn't care about facts, saving American businesses money, or the accountability that comes from the democratic process of open debate, opting instead to hide their decisions by burying them in unrelated bills hundreds of pages long, and sent to Congress. And now, due to the immediate trade war with Mexico it started, it turns out that the administration will create a new Mexican trucking program.  This is yet another example of Obama bowing to special interest group pressure, making choices that are bad for the United States, acting on them before thinking about them, and then having to reverse himself after the fact.

 

Let us Hope that the administration can Change, and will begin to carefully weigh policy initiatives prior to making them, so that the end result can be stated policy that makes sense for America, and doesn't require an immediate backpedaling from the president.  American global leadership does not start with breaking international trade treaties, and reversing our policy initiatives constantly.