SIEMENS DX CONTINUES LAYOFF SCHEDULE

Siemens DX is far from ending its employee layoff schedule and it's rumored most sites will once again be hit before end of 2012.
USA-Sacramento was just hit and we in the UK were told pending layoffs will start here by next week.
The madness continues.

Look my friend, It was a

Look my friend, It was a slip when I referred to the Constitution verses the Declaration of In dependance.

I agree that unions were very necessary; 100 years ago. But with all the government agencies watching out for employee safety ( OSHA ? for one )the unions have accomplished what they were looking for as far as safety,working hours, etc. Now they are mainly fighting for $$$$$.

The problem, especially with unions for the public service employees is that when wage & benefit negotiations come up, they are on the same side of the table as management. ( you give me the $$ and I give you the votes. Even the great FDR was against that. It was JFK I believe who decided to allow that. You are the scholar, check on that please.

How about the Yonkers fireman who retired at $100,000/year at about 45 years old and is able to start collecting his retirement immediately!
What private sector job can you do that?

Interesting, the only government employees who cannot be unionized are the military. Of course, you know which group is going to have their benefits cut first.

"This is purely an assertion.

"This is purely an assertion. As usual, you have zero in the way of specifics."

By his own staff's estimations (made awhile back before he was elected, on assumption that he would get his second term), the debt to be absorbed during the next four years of Obama's second tenure was on average about a trillion a year. That means we will have a debt of 20 trillion+ by the end of the Obama years, as it stands at ~$16 trillion today.

I don't think the debt was ever more than about 9 trillion for any other president for any year! This is an appoximation as I didn't Google it, but I am sure you will.

At 20 trillion in debt, we will be close to being beyond the point of return. At best it will anchor the US economy into a slow growth model llike Japan.

So there I gave you numbers, Obama's own numbers so you cannot argue about them except that these are obviously best case scenario numbers since they came from his staff. The situation is very likely to be even more dire.

If I were a liberal and voted for him, I would watch what happens to Greece so you can see how the "Hope and Change" mantra will affect you and you heirs future.

Dear colleagues in LA, see

Dear colleagues in LA, see you around in 2013. What an achievement!

I'm sorry that I don't live

I'm sorry that I don't live in the same black and white world that you do. Unions have done both positive and negative things as have most organizations, be they government, unions, or public or privately held companies. Unlike you, I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. You keep using the term 'productivty' which also has both a bad and good connotation. Paying low wages increases productivity as we measure it. Speeding up an assembly line increases productivity. Increasing working hours by having salaried personnel work overtime (for free) increases productivity. New technology such as computers and robots increase productivity. Our current 'standard' of the 40 hour work week and overtime regulations arose from unions. Perhaps you wish to eliminate these regulations as well as child labor laws and minimum wage laws, all of which could be claimed to decrease productivity.

Yes, I agree, that in some cases, unions have obtained too much power and often fight for self-serving purposes that might not benefit the nation in general. Does that mean I want all unions eliminated? Of course not. Do some or many companies do things that are not in the public interest? Of course they do and I don't want private companies eliminated either. But when things go bad, I do support appropriate adjustments (not an all or nothing approach). Just keep in mind that virtually every governmental regulation, from the Federal level down to local speed limits on roads arose from a specific need and/or abuse of existing law. Most government regulation of business arose out of abuses by large corporations. For the most part, many of these regulations become minor annoyances and cost for large corporations, but kill small businesses who can't deal with the 'economy of scale'. Your solution is to eliminate regulations altogether; mine is to adjust regulations to lessen the burdens they impose on small business while still retaining the ability to curb excesses and abuses. You seem to look at the world in black and white terms (and white is your obvious preference), whereas I see the world as a continuum of subtle shades of gray.

And for what it is worth, the Preamble to the Constution includes the phrase: "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity". One interpretation of these phrases give the Federal government a large leeway in terms of legislation, especially when one accepts that the government gets its power from the people (not corporations or only the elite), and the government's function is to carry out the will of the majority while balancing the rights of minorities. In case you didn't notice, this past election, plus a large number of polls, has indicated that right now a clear majority American people support eliminating the Bush era tax cuts for the rich (only on income that exceeds $250K). I guess the majority realizes that our economy during the 1990's was pretty good, even when the rich were paying at a 39.5% marginal tax rate and that millions of new jobs were created during that era of 'higher' taxes. They also noted what happened to job creation after top tax rates were lower. Note that this does not prove cause and effect, nor do any of your claims. It is simply that data today strongly suggest that Americans do not accept the Republican 'job creator' (euphemism for rich people, I guess) theory of the wealth trickling down. Your problem is that you just can't accept being a part of the minority and believe that your eliteness makes your opinion count more or that you are somehow better than everyone else.

Guess what? You are not better, smarter, or more correct about your theories. But at least you are learning a bit about our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. You could at least have the grace to thank me for the history lessons and providing you with some facts and data to fold into your theories.

You are correct -- "pursuit

You are correct -- "pursuit of happiness" is not in the constitution but the declaration of independence. I acknowledge my mistake. It was the the concept that our country was not founded on the ideals that government is responsible for everyone's happiness. The individual is.

Now, how about you admiting that unions are not entirely responsible for the gains made by America's working class. Unions that fight against productivity increases will eventually drive a company out of business ----

Hostess for a recent example. Would not let the bread truck drivers deliver the Twinkies (the truck drivers did get the message) ... Well 18,000 people are now out of a job because the bakers didn't. When the jobs come back wages will be at 1/2, instead of 90%.

And yes -- some venture capitalist (like Bain) invested millions to try and save the company -- and they lost it all.

"Try the constitution saying

"Try the constitution saying "pursuit of happiness". No guarantees."

Once again, you show that you know no nothing. The phrase to which you refer is a part of the Declaration of Independece, which as NO legal status in the United States. It was simply a letter to King George which explained, in excrutiating detail, the reasons why America was leaving the British Empire. The 'pursuit of happiness' phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

No wonder you have so many problems with your point of view. You don't even know what most 6th graders know. Perhaps you are a victim of an home-based education? Whatever the case, it makes little sense to argue with those who make up whatever 'facts' they want to 'prove' their point.

"Obama is rapidly turning us

"Obama is rapidly turning us into, what Europe has become; broken ultra left leaning countries too far gone to adapt to necessary austerity measures."

This is purely an assertion. As usual, you have zero in the way of specifics. What specifically has Obama done that is causing the alleged problems you claim. And then, what specific consequences can you tie to anything that Obama has done? Just like the Republicans who got clobbered in the recent election, you like to talk in vague generalities and offer no detail or specifics. And before you raise any issue about the national debt, remember that Obama was saddled with a ton of debt from his predecessor in the form of billions each and every year for tax cuts for the rich (by far, the largest contributor to the overall nsational debt and annual budget deficits), the two wars we are still paying for (at least Obama ended the one in Iraq which was never justified), and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Yes, the numbers from these Bush era financial blunders show up on Obama's watch, but you have no basis for giving him 'credit' for this part of the national debt or annual deficit. So before you start blaming Obama and giving specifics (not that you ever do), make sure you have the facts straight. You also need not repeat the irrelevant comments about LBJ and social security (unless, of course, you can magically find a way to show relevance) or FDR and Pearl Harbor.

You repeatedly claim that Obama is ruining this country. How about explaining yourself for a change? The other choice you have is to continue with you current tactics of assertions and unexplained theories of how capitalism is supposed to work (in your mind) and be like the 2012 Republicans. Choose the latter and you will continue to become a smaller and smaller party in American politics and you will continue to lose elections. You just don't get it ... all of you screaming and threats about the future (with no data to support your claims) is simply not working with the American public. MY data and evidence for that last statement are the 2012 election votes that Republicans lost on virtually every level including the House where they got more total seats, but fewer total votes than Democratic candidates (I bet you didn't know that last fact, did you?).

I await eagerly your next blah blah blah, yadda-yadda-yadda group of meaningless assertions.

"....not a shred of evidence

"....not a shred of evidence that your doomsday forecasts are coming true...."

I did not even get into Japan, because this is not a third world country, but clearly first world. Europe is cooked over the long haul which hopefully is decades away rather than in my lifetime excepting Greece of course. This a surely a "dead man walking" country, limping along naively rioting and clamoring for livable living conditions. And for what single reason do the citizens of that country think they deserve this? Just because they are Greeks and not third world citizens like Haiti? The sad truth is Greece is way beyound not being a first world country because they owe more money than the country is worth in terms of real world economics.......when was the last time you bought something made in Greece? The liberal wage/entitlement mentality of the citizendry has voted themselves (the country) into insolvency. Japan is different because their salaries are actually higher than the US for equivalent jobs and they have a society much more capable of saving and enduring true austerity. Unfortunately this is only stringing them along into a very slow death spiral, and once again debt is killing another country abd in Japan's case unpayable levels of debt so their economy cannot recover.
Precisely the senario I fear for the US. If not for their debt,I truly believe Japan would have been booming since their big recession20+ years ago. The trouble is the debt drags thm down and even an effective zero or even negative interest rate has not recovered their economy. I believe they are cooked also in the long run, and this is a country with a population far more capable of working together and coping. But for them I think it is too late. We would be wise to look at this country and ask ourselves if we are headed there, and if we are, do we have the right guy in the big house? My answer is a resounding no.

"Where do you think America

"Where do you think America would be if we were back in the 1920's, where you seem to want us to be, without unions and higher wages which are exactly what led to the mass consumer boom that has been driving the American economy for the past 80 years?"

Higher wages came about because of increases in productivity,not because of union demands. Unfortunately since the 60's, unions have been getting increases in wages, without increases in productivity. This contributes to inflation.

Try the constitution saying "pursuit of happiness". No guarantees.

"....not a shred of evidence

"....not a shred of evidence that your doomsday forecasts are coming true...."

Obama is rapidly turning us into, what Europe has become; broken ultra left leaning countries too far gone to adapt to necessary austerity measures.

Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain even England. Then there is Italy, the real issue on that continent.

What else in the world do you need for "proof" that will satisfy that lead lined liberal coconut of yours? We are very near the levels of debt that these countris are going to go under for, inevidably. And it is not because we have not given them enough time to recover. There IS NO recovery, because the world economic model has permanently changed. At least it will be this way for a long enough period to see Europe crumble from their perch. You seem to think that I do not want the majority of Americans to attain sufficient wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is third world countries will suffer thru poor salaries and living conditions in order to maintain employment. The current scenario is still better than what they would have if not for these poor payng jobs. So the cheap labor dynamic is not going anywhere.......this is what I am trying to get across to you. Life as we expect it to be in the future, just cannot be when highly technical skill can be so cheap in third world countries. We absolutely need to embrace austerity, and this will only be possible with zero national debt if at all possible, otherwise it just means crippling levels of austerity. What would you want for your kids; zero debt interest or impossily high national debt interest obligations when the inevidable austerity becomes reality? And the jackass is passing on incredible levels of debt to the gainfully employed young, of the future. This is what worries an old man like me.

So in your little world, it

So in your little world, it is perfectly acceptable for companies to engage in collusion to fix prices and wages, but it is not acceptable for workers to come together to negotiate for better lives for themselves?

Where do you think America would be if we were back in the 1920's, where you seem to want us to be, without unions and higher wages which are exactly what led to the mass consumer boom that has been driving the American economy for the past 80 years? I'll give you an hint: We'd be China or India ... a country filled with poor overworked, underpaid 'slaves'.

All we ever here from you is dire predictions of the future and yet not a shred of evidence that your doomsday forecasts are coming true. No facts, no ideas, no details ... just ranting and raging against progress and the millenia-old trend of achieving balance and fairness between the rich and those who aspire to improve their lives.

You have yours and that's all you care about. It doesn't matter how bad things are for others as long as you protect all that wealth that you have and don't even spend. If you insist on talking about ancient societies, I suggest you consider the fate of King Midas. As you may recall, he got all the gold he wanted and wound up as an example of greed and a man who wound up miserable for lack of love. It appears that you are just as villainous as he was.

From one person who you can't bully with your threats and predictions of doom. I remain an optimist who believe that we will all overcome the elitists like you who only care about yourselves and don't give a *$%* about anyone else. Remember that the Constitution does not start with 'We, the elite of, the People'. We don't need your paternalistic guidance to survive; we just need to get oppressors like you under control .... and, believe me, eventually we will.

"The public sector and

"The public sector and unionized private sector will continue to bleed the private sector, till they bleed it dry."

Well, here is somebody who has it correct.

Witness Hostess Brand bakery goods, you know Twinkies/ Ding Dongs.
The parent company said that if the bakery union was not going to move on their demands, the company should just close up as the profits would not be mathematically possible. In other words it was not possible to continue if their demands were met as the changing economic picture demanded budget tightening for the company. The union as is typical, would not give in, feeling like the "small guy" with no power or wealth to give in too. Well the company simply proceeded into bankruptcy, and all those union bakers lost their jobs. Who says you can't bleed a company to death with union demands! The very same thing happened to GM/ Chrysler, though our brilliant president prefered bailing out a broken company and preserve the very culture that bleed them until "banckruptcy" was the only way out; quotation marks because it was not a typical banckruptcy of course. Yes, that liberal/union mentality breeding a culture of entitlement to eventually bring about the fall of the USA as an economic powerhouse. Remember the Romans never believed their empire was ever going to be at risk, and the Greeks probably felt this way to up until fairly recently. And when I look up and see whom we have for a president, someone totally clueless about world economics while having a seemingly genetic distaste for the wealthy and everything they stand for and achieve, I am greatly saddened. Yes, you say I look at the American public with distain and discust and to a degree you are correct, but I swear it s more pity and sadness that our great country has fallen victim to the clueless liberals with all of their "facts" and "smarts". Truely amazing how you guy's can totally miss the big picture while persuing your petty agenda's. Wreaking the foundation for good structured behavior is nothing less that slow moving national genocide. Ohhhh how you will scream at how radical my points are, correct?

In really, they are simply the original uncorrupted vision of what Americans should all assume to be; good, responsible, self sufficient citizens not looking for any entitlements.

Yes. Too bad that so many

Yes. Too bad that so many people don't have a clue as to its origin because they don't take the time to learn and understand the history of our Founding Fathers who they idolize and (mis)cite so often.

Long live the 2nd amendment!

Long live the 2nd amendment!

Obviously the next step will

Obviously the next step will be to gag the idiots on the right. We are tired of your whining, criticism and lack of any positive new ideas to do things differently.

"I can't believe you guys are

"I can't believe you guys are still at it! Stick a fork in it the election is done."

America as we knew it, is done :-(

I feel sorry for any of the generations that are coming along. The public sector and unionized private sector will continue to bleed the private sector, till they bleed it dry.

Than what ... ?

I can't believe you guys are

I can't believe you guys are still at it! Stick a fork in it the election is done.

There's a little cafe' Where

There's a little cafe'
Where we can hear music play
They keep the lights turned down low
It's a place where lovers go
And when the moon begins to shine, I will know that you are mine

The idiocy here is really

The idiocy here is really getting out of hand.

The Republican spokesmen posting here must thing the American people are the dumbest audience in the world. What little they present as 'fact' is either a complete lie, a major distortion, or basically irrelevant (or at least, these posters fail to demonstrate any relevance). You people are exactly what Democrats pray for every day. Keep going and you will just continue to turn the American public off with your utter nonsense. They simply won't even bother to try to hear your 'message'. If you don't believe this (and I could less if you do or not), I suggest you refer to Senatorial elections in Utah and Delaware in 2010, and Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and, to some extent, Ohio and Virginia to see for yourself what happens when your candidates are as outrageous during campaigns and you are in your posts here.

You must be getting pretty desparate to find enough scapegoats for the beating you just took in the election when, truth be known, you need go no further than your closest mirror to find those responsible for your failure. Those who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions should never be responsible for governing others. Think about it!!!!

Lucky? No, it looks to me

Lucky? No, it looks to me like many "blacks" to me are racist.(~~ 45%) When better then 90% vote for Obama, how can you call it otherwise? If a large percentage weren't, then only 53% of them would have voted for Obama.

Democrats are just lucky. I

Democrats are just lucky.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
The other way might be to be realistic.
No, I guess that's way to much to ask from republicans.
They still think I have a new car since I voted for obama.

"....Clinton strips down the

"....Clinton strips down the military....."

This is correct and one of the big reasons his term was so solvent. The collapse of the USSR was timed perfectly for Clinton to benefit. I'm almost afraid to credit Reagan for the bulk of the credit for the demise of the USSR because I know it will set off the liberals. But it is true, that Reagan used our stronger economy and huge military budget to bancrupt the Soviet war machine. Clinton also was the beneficiary of a bubbling High Tech stock market that started its collapse during his last year and finally collapsed during W.'s first year. Remember the huge tax revenue from this bubble was Clinton's to benefit from.......at least until the end came, but funny no one seems to credit W. for having to weather the fallout. Clinton's fortune was also that the US economy was just starting to take off when he took office. It's recovery had no bearing on his policies because he had not instituted any of it yet. The economy was just working its way out of Bush H.'s recession. Now watch the liberals go off again on this real world take on these administrations fortunes. Timing is everything and the Dem's really had good timing in those years.

Lets see; FDR let our

Lets see; FDR let our defensed down and Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Clinton strips down the military, allowing him to balance the budget, We get attacked less then a year after he leaves office. (9-11)

FDR imprisons 1,000s of American just because they were of Japanese decent, but that's OK.

The country was still in a deep depression when December 7, pearl Harbor came about. WW II is what fixed FDR's economy.

Nixon gets thrown out of office for covering up a 2 bit burgulary. Obama gets 4 Americans killed because he was stupid enough to think kissy poo with the Muslam Brotherhood will make them like us. And Is doing his bes to cover up.

So you don't like the

So you don't like the Democrats-liberals. I guess you don't invest in the stock market much. Historical data is very clear on this point. The market has done significantly better under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones. I know this is counterintuitive, but check out the facts if you don't believe me.

I'm just so glad that I don't have a business-oriented person who would be out of his league trying to run the government. I shudder to think of how things would be with the next Herbert Hoover or Gerald Ford (remember those wonderful WIN buttons), or either of the two Bushes. I remember all too clearly how their policies turned out and how each left office with a financial disaster or major downtown on his plate. Even Reagan had the crash of 1987.

I'll take the country-bumpkin, Oxford educated, pot-smoking (but not inhaling) Clinton years when business grew, unemployment went down, the stock market grew, and the budget was balanced. What is it about those years that you didn't like?

You keep talking about a conservative philosophy, but when you actually see Republicans in action and compare them to Democrats in action, the 'theory' doesn't seem to work out too well. It sounds like what you want is a conservative government with results that have only been achieved with liberal governments. Are you missing something here?

Well then, my guess is that

Well then, my guess is that you will be very happy on the trail that the Dem's/ liberals will lead us on to the future. And again, I don't think the Republicans are the best thing sice sliced bread, they just understand the business aspect of governing better than the left; free market, smaller government, less taxation, self reliance, etc. Thy are the lesser of two evils.......I clearly realize that. What else does a conservative do? Elect the guy who is even worse than Mitt because he promises the land of milk and honey? Nooooo we have to start steering the country away from the simple American dream and get with the new world economy, which is unfortunately far, far more competitive. What third world country labor is willing to do for a few dollars a day is the new paradigm, and the West has still not adjusted to it fast enough. By the way Europe is in the same boat, only with an even more liberal mind set and an older society, so they are ahead of us in economic time.......and look what is happening to them. Its not just Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland; Italy is the big shoe to drop, and if they go all of Europe will quickly follow and take us with them.......along with China/ India. So you see, you are arguing all the fine details of Dem's vs Republicans and that is just the tip of the iceberg for me. Our numbers I believe are a bit better than Greece, et.al. but we are not far behind. And you elected a guy who is clueless about the bigger picture.....his concern is an ego centric political game of winning while in office and damn the torpedoes.....he only cares about the 8 years, because it very likely will fall to a republican next with all the trouble ahead and he will gladly just leave a bigger mess to deal with just as W. did to him. Simple childlike logic, only the very complicated pieces fit perfectly. This is why I worry so much for the kids. If not for the huge deficit, when the rest of the world blows up, we would probably be the best country to be living in to weather the catastrophy with the single big issue of energy to solve. But a rapid conversion to coal/ natural gas could tide us over for quite a few years. Trouble is that deficit......if the dollar collapses we are in a depression, simple as that.

" i agree a certain amount of

" i agree a certain amount of white lies may have been the better if not less honest campaign strategy, but Mitt just would not do it. Even the lefties have got to admit some respect for his integrity."
Integrity? I worked for dade behring during the bain years. This man has no integrity whatsoever. Willaird would sell his mother if he thought there was a profit in it.
Take off the rose colored glasses and try to see what the rest of us see. A sleazy rich guy trying to act like 'one of us'.

Bit by bit the truth is being

Bit by bit the truth is being dragged out of you. First you tell us that Mitt didn't lay out the plan because the details would have been too shocking to Americans (e.g., complete austerity) so it was just fine to lie. Shows what you think about Americans. Then you say you know Americans and, to sum it up, you basically say Americans are too naive and stupid to understand the complexities of the Republican agenda and that they need to be led by your elite class of experts.

Just how far will your arrogance go? And you sort of fit in with Siemnens just to make a connection with this thread again. You're the paternalistic type, aren't you? "Hi, I'm from management (or the Republican Partyy); I'm here to help you. I have a plan but won't bother your silly mind with details. I don't know what you do on your job, but I don't need to. I'm from management (the Republican Party; I'm here to help you."

Now we know the truth about you. Thank you for validating the wisdom of the American people in the last election. If only Mitt and the other Republicans had been as honest as you; maybe we would be free of the gridlock and obstructionism your party practices when it loses --- just like a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

And it's not that I do not

And it's not that I do not understand where the typical American is coming from. It's just the opposite; the typical American does not realize we are in a totally different economic climate than what I grew up in. Things are very, very different and many of the things Americans desire and expect from the American economy will no longer be that way. I know I sound full of doom and gloom, but I really do understand economics much better than the average American. I am a self made millionaire and it surely was not because of "White privilege" as I started with nothing. I just see time and again how clueless Americans (and even big time economists-look how many disregarded the tech crash/ housing crash, neither of which I might add, I got caught up with) are. So excuse me for pontificating but I have some cred. I'll repeat this again; we as a nation are clueless as to how far the world wide economy has changed over the last 2-3 decades, and we are even more clueless when it comes to the deficit. As a business owner, the metrics of what I see with the fed. deficit just do not make any sense......the numbers are getting to the point that nothing is calculating with reason. We have huge problems ahead my friend, and I do not know how Obama's economic advisor's sleep at night.

Well, it's not so much we/

Well, it's not so much we/ Mitt did not convey the message well enough. The truth is, the real message would be far, far too full of austerity to win an election for any political position. So the "real" message really cannot be laid out, and I suspect that this is why Mitt was not as forthcoming as Obama was about specifics in his plans. Of course he could have just said anything just to assure a win and then do everything different once in power. But Mitt I'm guessing had just a bit too much integrity to go full steam ahead in this vein.You have to ask yourself why wouldn't he just have laid out a liberal plan full of false specifics just to get the votes.....well i agree a certain amount of white lies may have been the better if not less honest campaign strategy, but Mitt just would not do it. Even the lefties have got to admit some respect for his integrity.

You don't understand the

You don't understand the 'typical' American at all. You are now part of the Republican Party that believes that the message is correct and the problem was in the delivery. You believe that Romney did a poor job of selling conservatism and that a better communicator of your ideas is the solution. I suspect that many Democrats hope that your side prevails in the struggle for the future of the Republican Party.

"....Republicans trying to

"....Republicans trying to figure out who to blame for losing the election"

No, not trying to find blame in my case, I pretty much know why we lost. It's just that our message does not "stir the masses". Many on the conservative side are truly confused, thinking they are out of touch w/ the current political climate. Well, I think this is basically correct for a lot of us as we do not quite know how to relate to "joe everybody", who is the typical American. This "typical" American is one who feels SS, unemployment, welfare, healthcare, a livable salary (even if he is flipping burgers), any amount of credit, bancruptcy protection, etc., etc. is rightfully his just for being a law abiding hard working American citizen. I'm sure you will agree with all of this being things all Americans deserve for being the hard working good people of this country. The trouble is, this isn't the real world. Credit is never a good idea, unless it is for an investment w/ great potential to create positive cash flow.......I'll bet you never thought of credit this way, correct? And unions, tariffs, defined benefit pensions DO NOT protect American workers or their jobs in the long run. Don't beleive it? Unions are great for employees as long as the overall US economy does not suffer severe competition or big recessions, depressions. However if any of these things happen in a game changing way, true economic forces take over and companies and entire work forces can become uncompetitive. Witness the UAW, and Detroit; it worked for many decades until the Japanese, Korean car makers started putting the pressure on. All of a sudden Deroit is not doing well. Its not so much the cars are so bad, it is the salary/ benefit embeddeness w/ the UAW that is killing them. So to bail them out the US spends billions to save them but does not get rid of the UAW involvement. Trust me this is a bomb just needing another spark to go off and make another run at bancruptcy. The world economy has fundamentally changed and Americans have not accepted the reality. In the same way we as citizens have not accepted how badly the government has sunk our future prospects for sustainability. We are on a car (the American deficit) being driven off a cliff, and "joe everybody" thinks it's just great; it is not.....we may actually be very close to the point of no return with this thing. I'm just hoping it goes off the cliff after I am long dead.

It is sooooooooo much fun

It is sooooooooo much fun watching the Republicans trying to figure out who to blame for losing the election.

They blame Obama (of course, he gets blamed for everything)
They blame the poor
They blame Blacks
They blame Latinos
The blame the 'takers'
Some even blame hurricane Sandy
Some blame NJ Governor Chris Christie for showing appreciation for The President doing his job (remember Bush in his safe Air Force 1 seat, looking down on New Orleans after Katrina?)

They blame everything and everyone for their own mess. They refuse to even open the door to examining whether they lost because of their message, or lack thereof. They take absolutely no responsibility for the thumping they got at the polls.

So answer us one simple question. Why would the American public want to hire as their Government leaders, a group of people who won't even take responsibility for their own actions? Government is already irresponsible enough as it is with their divided loyalties between the people they represent and the lobbyists who give them money to get them re-elected. Why would you think that we want even more irresponsible people in charge. I was under the impression that blaming others for your own failures goes out when most people reach puberty.

So you lost. Big Deal. Less than 50 % of all candidates win, so losing makes you part of the majority, I guess. Why not just grow up and take it like a man!! Your continued whining is simply a bad reflection on you.

"Yes, in this case you are

"Yes, in this case you are admittedly 100% correct."

My response is on the other thread. Posting the same thing multiple times won't make it any more true. Why not just crawl back into whatever hole you inhabit for the next 3 years or so? You can come back then to explain how the next Republican candidate is really appealing even though his policies aren't.

Maybe you can try to sell ice to the eskimos in the meantime. You seem to be well suited to that job.

".......Romney's nomination

".......Romney's nomination was the start of the death of the republican party as we know it"

Yes, in this case you are admittedly 100% correct.

Until the economy lags even more and unemployment gets worse, or until the sheeet hits the fan with SS, misc. government programs, or when older folks start realizing that w/ Obama care the expensive treatments and organ transplants are going to get very scarce. True it may even be a few more elections before it hits the fan but eventually the full ramifications of what he has done will be fully realized. I hope I am already dead before this happens so I will not be even more concerned for the grandkids. But somehow I get the feeling we will all be regretting it even before his term ends...........including you. What I see is that you see the conservatives as out of touch; this is what C. Matthews insists ad nauseam. What it really is, is liberals/ young folks are out of touch with reality. Look at how we spend and borrow as individuals. Think we have a clue? When the average family cannot come up with $5,000 cash for an emergency, we are a lost nation w/ no budgitary aptitude. Likewise, all the left wing wealth re-distrubution policies are a sign of a doomed nation. Look, the wealthier are so because they understand investment and economics. What you make and what mommy gives you really matter little in the long term. If we all re-boot and start with the same amount of money, would you bet me that the Conservatives as a group in ten years would have the same net worth as the Liberals? No sir, you would lose that bet by a zillion miles as the conservatives would surely be worth many times more than the average Liberal at that point. Surely you would not argue this, would you? If you blindly ignor this reality, you my friend are in that poor mix.

"Obama has caused far, far

"Obama has caused far, far more institutionalized trouble that Bush ever carried forward. If Obama just did ZERO, it would have been better in the long run. GM would have gone to bancruptcy, but picked up by some other car company for dirt cheap. The UAW would not have raided the stock value and the new GM would have been far leaner and beter run, or they would have deserved to go banckrupt again!"

You republicans just don't get it and it's why you will continue to lose.
If Obama did ZERO it would have been worse than the fiscal cliff.
GM going bankrupt would have also bankrupted thousands of smaller suppliers throwing the ecomomy into a complete tailspin.
Why do you think he lost Michigan, his home state, and Ohio, where they threw millions upon millions of bucks? Auto workers and suppliers.
Why shouldn't the UAW have gotten stock?
You heard it here first.
Williard Romney's nomination was the start of the death of the republican party as we know it.
Good Riddance!

And by the way (since you

And by the way (since you will scream it was all Bush's fault), I might add that yes, Bush was horrible with the deficit. And yes, Iraq was a huge blunder.....so what? Obama has caused far, far more institutionalized trouble that Bush ever carried forward. If Obama just did ZERO, it would have been better in the long run. GM would have gone to bancruptcy, but picked up by some other car company for dirt cheap. The UAW would not have raided the stock value and the new GM would have been far leaner and beter run, or they would have deserved to go banckrupt again! In the long run economic priciples would have self corrected our bogus economy until things were in balance. A lot of nearsighted pain for a far brighter future, however.

Yes, Romney has lost, but so

Yes, Romney has lost, but so has every American that pays taxes on income from a full time job, and this is set to be in perpetuity. Just imagine all the FICA (remember he decresed the contributions the last couple years to benefit the early subscrbers, by letting the young carry the future burden----a great deal by the way for me!), income, cap gain, inheritance, sales, carbon cap and trade, internet taxes, etc, etc. you young people are being burdened with. Throw in the TRILLIONS from stimulus and bailouts, unemployment extensions, COBRA extensions, infrastructure spending, pork, etc., etc. and the resulting huge federal deficit interest payments we are now saddled with. WEEEEPIE! we avoided a recession he boasts?! Well dipsheet, if you borrow massive amounts of money and inject it into the economy of course spending and solvency will be great.......until the stimulus runs out and everything is back to "normal", but with the added burden of the huge increases in interest for the gov. largess. How anyone thinks this is better in the long run is a fasinating study in economic incompetance. Just the same, what do you expect from someone who had never run anything significant.

"Obama has stated that

"Obama has stated that because he had the majority vote he has a clear mandate to insist on more taxes for the "rich".

Besides winning the popular vote by the slimmest of margins, it speaks volumes as to the man's ability to reason with clarity. So, let me get this straight......... the popular vote victory allows him to clearly assess that the one single issue of increasing taxes on his definition of who is "rich", is the single most important issue wanted by the public? Even far, way far, whacked out liberals should clearly see this as pure..."

blah, blah, blah.
Your bane boy romney got beat.
Deal with it.
Let the rest of us try to make some progress here.
And that does include taxing those making $250K or higher.
Deal with it.
By the way, according to your boy romney I should have a new car in my driveway. Where is it?

Good to see our automotive

Good to see our automotive bailout $$ are being used to keep jobs in America

General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) opened its second plant in China in order to construct its local discount brand, named Baojun. The first car to be released was the 630, which is a midsize sedan retailing for $10,100, and the plant will also construct the Chi mini car, selling for $6,400.

XYZ

Important message for

Important message for Flanders site, "believe or not : The ignorant director of systems engineering Alex G is the laureate for noble price in systems engineering this year.

and the impact on the deficit

and the impact on the deficit of two tax cuts that produces relatively few new jobs at a time when we could have been paying down the debt with the Clinton surplus and, then, when we had a war to fight?tony

Too bad there is no way to

Too bad there is no way to make racists like you smart no matter who's in charge. The election is over and Obama won. Get over it and yourself already.

Obama now has the time to

Obama now has the time to fund researchers to make all the rest of the brothers as smart as he is.

Why did romney lose

Why did romney lose mass,michigan and nh? Because they know him best. Thanks God the rest of the country was also paying attention.

Romney would have done what

Romney would have done what he does best. Trim the fat, lay off all unnecessary government workers (stop funding state and local workers), eliminate the debt, and get the balance sheet looking great. And then he'd sell America off to the highest bidder.

Or not. Remember that 50 % of the companies that Bain bought either failed or were sold at a loss. Never mattered though. When you bat .500 and hit a dozen or so home runs ... well, you get the point.

Obama will cure cancer plus

Obama will cure cancer plus the cubs will win the World Series

More comments from the

More comments from the politically inept.

Just out of curiosity, one what planet are you living? Do you ever read anything or do you just create you own 'factoids' out of thin air?

Obama will get the banks to

Obama will get the banks to forgive my mortgage soon!

Obama won; Utopia can not be

Obama won;

Utopia can not be far behind :-)

The circadian rhythm is one

The circadian rhythm is one explanation. However, many child psychologists believe that dropping the 2 AM feeding is more of a feedback mechanism. Think about it for a second. When you go to get the baby for that feeding, you really don't want it to even be awake. You are far less likely to cuddle and hold the infant lovingly; it is more of a business-like, non-emotional feeling. Apparently, babies can feel a difference in how they are held during feeding and somehow, pick up on the negative vibes the parents show and, basically learns that it isn't wanted at 2 AM.

Perhaps the 'response' is a combination of both.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.