Why would GM cut R & D, the source of its future growth, in order to show profits in the short run? Is something happening in, say, November, for which the 26%-government-owned entity might want its balance sheet to look artificially rosy?
Posts Tagged ‘unions’
The Indiana Democratic Party’s first quarter campaign finance report was filed last Friday and confirms what everyone already suspected but Democrats denied: their “We Are Indiana” walkout was bought and paid for national unions. Read the report here: Dem Finance Report.
During the period of the walkout that began on February 22 and ended on March 28, Democrat-backed unions contributed nearly $140,000 to the Indiana Democratic Party. Their goal: stop the legislative session in its tracks, kill anti-union bills, and pay whatever it took to keep Democrats holed up in an Illinois hotel.
This surprises me not one little bit. But it does depress me. It depresses me that the sheeple will avert their eyes from the plain truth in front of them and continue to vote for these criminals.
Boeing Co. (BA) should run its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in Washington state instead of South Carolina, where a new plant is almost complete, because the move outside the Seattle area retaliated against striking union workers, the U.S. government said.
You know this is pure pay-back to the unions and nothing else. The National Labor
Rape Bastards Relations Board has no business telling a company where to put its factories. I hope the hell that Boeing (a company not exactly high on my Fav list) sues the assholes all the way the the Supreme Court. NLRB needs a serious wing-clipping.
Somehow, I think that’s a feature, not a bug of Obama’s energy policy. Transit systems are usually heavily unionized, built-in cities that are heavily union.
The scariest phrase in government language, “heavily invest” in public works.
William Millar, president of the APTA, is calling on Congress for investments aimed at addressing rising demand for public transportation:We must make significant, long-term investments in public transportation or we will leave our fellow Americans with limited travel options, or in many cases stranded without travel options. Public transit is the quickest way for people to beat high gas prices if it is available.
…about the relationship between Union and the government is summed up in a cartoon this morning by the imcomparatble Michael Ramirez.
Obama silent as liberals make death threats. Where is the denunciation from Barack Obama?
Death threats from liberals are OK. Haven’t you figured that out yet? Don is puzzled…
“Obama’s Call for Civil Discourse Resonates Around the Country.”
He keeps calling for it.
But as leader of the Democratic Party he does nothing about it. He has never in 6 years in the national eye ever denounced Democratic Party excesses.
He should leap on this one to quiet things in Madison and to bring civil discourse to that state’s capital city.
Only right wing fascists teabaggers can be uncivil, Don. You should know that by now…
Despite EADS’ ally in Northrop Grumman, Boeing’s alliance with the International Machinists and Aerospace Workers Association was the differencemaker in this process. Boeing plans to build its tankers in Washington state, which relies heavily on union labor, contrasted with EADS’ plans to build in a state that does not rely on union labor — Alabama.
This is about the new
present to the unions Air Force Tanker that was awarded to Boeing. Yea I know Boeing is supposedly an US company. Yeah, I live in Alabama. We had high hopes. We have a great workforce. But you see, in “The Won’s” eyes, we are redneck hicks because we are not too keen on labor unions.
Was it a payback? Does GEICO sell insurance using a cute gecko?
As EADS looked for answers Friday, Boeing celebrated its win. In comments that reinforced the notion that politics may have played a hand in the decision, a top official from Boeing’s biggest labor union credited President Barack Obama with delivering the victory to the Chicago-based company.
Rich Michalski, general vice president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, said he was convinced that EADS was poised to beat Boeing for the coveted deal.
Barak Hussein has been doing everything he could to trash the economy of the south since he darkened the doorway of the White House for the first time. And this time he did it in a way to really screw over conservative who have themselves twisted in knots trying to a) defend Boeing, and b) sound like they are supporting the military.
In reality, the EADS project would have produced more actual lifting capacity, poured more money into the local economy (remember Alabama is also a low-tax state) and provided jobs for people in a hard-hit area. But that’s doesn’t fit the agenda, does it? Smashing the South in the mouth has been the “Mouth”‘s style all along. “DUDE” bleats endlessly about how he is all about the common man, while living large in the “Big House” and shopping for arugula. He has meetings with Union officials in the Blair House, where no records are kept, and says he runs the “most transparent administration – EVAH!”
Had he been President during Katrina, I have little doubt the response would have been far, far worse than it was under Bush. Between his essentially shutting down our petroleum industry in the Gulf, pulling the rung from under Southern states business deals, and God knows what else, he want’s to make the South as horrible a place to live as possible.
P.S. In the interest of fairness, and perhaps to prove my point about the annoying conservative tendency to put their targets in the midst of a circular firing squad (that was a matephor in case any literal minded libtards are reading this) here is another view:
If the European Aeronautic Defence and Space’s (EADS) bid had won, Boeing’s supporters would have pointed to the fact that the European-based company’s initial low price for its plane, the Airbus 330, was made possible by unfair government subsidies. And because Boeing has won, EADS’s fans are now pointing to Boeing’s lobbying campaign on behalf of its offer based on Boeing’s 767.
But some critics of the Pentagon’s choice of Boeing’s offer have gone further, suggesting that because Boeing’s headquarters are in Chicago and Obama is from the Windy City that somehow “Chicago Politics” determined the outcome. As the Wall Street Journal editors opined: “The fuel tanker debacle has undermined a competitive and open market for defense purchases free of political pressure.” Or as one Washington Times and American Spectator writer penned even more acidly: “Boeing gets the tanker contract. I smell a rat. A crooked rat.” Pretty serious charges, if true. But is there any evidence to support them?
For what it’s worth, Gary Schmitt’s article is not bad. It’s just that I cannot be persuaded that the Obama White House did not deliberately throw the competition to the People’s Republic of Washington as a reward to his union pals and in exchange for Boeing’s promise to throw millions of dollars at his re-election campaign.