Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. kpc655


    Agree with your point, but therein lies the problem. the automakers (any company) is obligated, via the competitive environment we live in, to seek lower costs. if the only reason pay is so high is that there is an effective monopoly on the work force, then whatever company can avoid the monopoly will win. The uaw may have helped build the middle class long ago but its cost basis must be sustainable and competitive. That's all that right to work does, ensure competition in the labor work force. By attempting to dictate pay AND the size of the workforce, they've put themselves in a tough spot. uaw would be better of picking 1. The comparison to mullaly is also a good comparison. he earned his job and survives not because he is part of a union but because Ford thinks he's worth it. the general market, investors etc seems to agree. If ford found someone else who could do the same job as mullaly for less, they'd hire him tomorrow. Just my .02
  2. kpc655


    coercion and force create nothing but resentment better to win sales through superior product, advertising, quality etc.
  3. not sure why bush or obama was brought in to this. maybe those 2 guys can answer for themselves.
  4. so if bush did it it's ok? wow first i've ever heard of bush being anyone's moral guide
  5. Again at chrysler... http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/chrysler-workers-in-trenton-caught-smoking-and-drinking-during-lunch-breaks-20110713-dk I'm sympathetic to those that turned these guys in. they give the UAW a bad name and make a dangerous work environment even more dangerous. But i hate to see it plastered all over the news.
  6. kpc655


    blah blah blah and my grandkids will be paying for obama's 800 billion dollar boondoggle spending spree, blah blah blah stop looking into the rear view mirror and focus on whats going on TODAY
  7. kpc655

    Just keep getting better!

    Ford would probably be better off without the bailout of GM and Chrysler
  8. kpc655

    Just keep getting better!

    interesting, tell us more
  9. kpc655


    pie hole ass you sure are an angry person. tax cuts aren't spending. do you understand that? that's a pretty fundamental piece of logic that, if you don't understand, signals that you really shouldn't be on here preaching about such things. RE spending, i guess you didn't read the link or don't understand the math, so i'll explain it along with some info about taxes in a simple way. hope it helps! taxes are directly related to GDP and economic activity. Therefore it's much less of a fixed income than a variable income. i.e. it changes every year. Congress can change the tax base, but it does not have a direct impact on revenue (see laffer curve). Spending levels, on the other hand, are set directly by congress, with no regard to income. and the congress, with the approval of the president, dramatically increased spending in the face of a weakening economy. i.e., we have a spending problem because despite knowing revenue would decrease, they did nothing to raise revenue and in fact INCREASED spending. if they had held it the same your argument might hold water. but they didn't. so it doesn't. let me know if you need further explanation. it's always a joy to educate those on the left who've been led so far astray of reality. but hey, you're posts are entertaining! even if they do give us ford employees a bad name. so preach on !!!!
  10. kpc655


    ease up on the emotions and try again last year we had the lowest revenue since 2005. not in 10 years. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 notice how obama nearly tripled the yearly deficits in 2009 and 2010 (from 2008) while revenue dropped by app.15%, spending increased by 20%. in the face of a recession and potential lower tax receipts, spending GREW i.e. we have a spending problem. if you have trouble understanding the numbers, i can walk you through them.
  11. designed for? apparently not. or it must be a design or production flaw, more to come on this one,
  12. kpc655


    you watch too much rachel maddow. think for yourself a bit more instead of parroting the talking points of the left. didn't obama commit to keeping taxes fixed for 2 years because of the negative impact tax hikes would have on jobs? - yes. "We have arrived at a framework of a bipartisan agreement," Obama said. "For the next two years, every American family will keep their tax cuts." http://www.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-addresses-possible-deal-on-bush-tax-cuts/1 didn't Obama admin. promise unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% with the stimulus? - yes http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf The bottom line is that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. as proven by the CBO's estimate for tax receipts of 2.2 TRILLION in 2010 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/Chapter4.shtml Obama has proven the folly of on the job training and the liberal economic mindset. tax and spend is not a way to success. case closed.
  13. always the same race to the bottom BS let's end the race to the bottom, not foster it,
  14. If the uaw wants to negotiate salary and benefits for the salaried employees, you should organize them and add them to your roles. Otherwise, all these comparisons are worthless. want to get back like the salaried people did? agree to the same terms as salaried people. multiple tier wages. 401k's. contracts at will. etc. etc.
  15. typical union misunderstanding of compensation it's not a matter of "deserve" Did he EARN it? Most unbiased would say yes. yes he did. 56 million seems pretty cheap in fact, considering the turnaround.