2012 Iowa Caucuses: History tells us who the next president will be

With the votes all counted, Governor Mitt Romney was announced the winner of the Iowa Republican Caucus, with 24.6% of the vote, winning  by only eight votes, over Rick Santorum who came in second place with 24.5% of the Iowa Republican vote.

Governor Rick Perry came in fifth place in the Iowa Republican Caucus and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came in--sixth? She realized it was all over and gave a wonderful goodbye speech.  Governor Perry went back to Texas to re-assess, to pray, and God told him to stay in the race and "go forth" to South Carolina. 

Sources did not disclose whether or not God told Governor Perry that he would be the first candidate ever in history to come in fifth place in the Iowa Caucuses and still get his party's nomination for President of the United States.

Although some believed that the "Era of [Newt Gingrich]" was over, Former Speaker Newt Gingrich came in fourth place.  Isn't it possible for Newt to win the Republican nomination?  Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas, in 1992, won 4th place in the Iowa democrat caucus with only 3% of the Iowa democrat vote (that's right 3 (three) (III) percent), went on to win the democrat party nomination and eventually won the general election for the President of the United States. Newt can't do it with 13.3% of the Iowa Republican vote?

Texas Congressman Ron Paul came in 3rd place.  Ron Paul can't become president?  Vice President George H. W. Bush, in 1988, came in 3rd place with only 19% of the vote, went on to win the Republican Party nomination and eventually won the general election for the President of the United States.  Why can't Ron Paul be successful after winning 21.4% of the Iowa Republican vote? 

Rick Santorum came in 2nd place with 24.5% of the Iowa Republican vote.  He could also be the next president.  In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second place in the Iowa democrat caucus with 28% of the Iowa democrat vote, went on to win the democrat party nomination, and won the general election for the President of the United States.  In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 30% of the Iowa Republican vote, came in second place in the Iowa Republican Caucus, went on to win the Republican Party nomination and eventually became the greatest president of the 20th Century. 

No Newt, Roosevelt wasn't the greatest president of the 20th century.

So it's all decided.  It's all over folks.  Stick a fork in it.  It's done.  Surely, Governor Mitt Romney, first place winner in the 2012 Iowa Republican Caucus will be the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!  No?  and don't call you Shirley?  Well, consider the following facts:

• In 1992, George H. W. Bush came in 1st place and--what?...he was the incumbent president? Oh...
• OK OK in 1996 Bill Clinton won first place in the Iowa Cauc...wait he was the incumbent president too.
• Wait wait wait... George W. Bush--no darn it --he was also an incumbent-- but NOT THE FIRST TIME!
• GEORGE W. BUSH won first place in 2000 and went on to get the nomination and became president! and so did
• BARACK OBAMA IN 2008!

Small problem. When George W. Bush and Barack Obama were candidates in 2000 and 2008, the incumbent presidents did not run, since both incumbent presidents were serving their second terms.  With the exception of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, history shows that if an incumbent president is running, he's gonna be re-elected.  Had President Bill Clinton and President Bush respectively, not been serving their second terms, Candidate Bush and Barack Obama probably wouldn't have have become presidents, history shows.

In 1996, incumbent President Bill Clinton won the Iowa democrat caucus with 98% of the Iowa democrat vote, ahead of Undecided, who came in second place with 1%.  Ralph Nader came in third place, also with 1% -- or was that Pat Paulsen?

Obama is the incumbent president.  He ran in the 2012 Iowa democrat caucus, unopposed, and like incumbent Bill Clinton, he also won 98% of the Iowa democrat vote, coming in first place ahead of Undecided, who came in second place with 2% of the Iowa democrat vote.

Who do you think--will be--the next President of these fifty-seven United States of America? Hmm?

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus winner won't become president, history shows

History since 1976 has shown us that if the candidate is not the incumbent president, unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, if the said candidate wins the Iowa Caucus for his party, he USUALLY does not win his party's nomination but NEVER becomes President of the United States.

Since 1976, only two candidates who won the Iowa Caucus for their parties ever became the President of the United States. They were George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama in 2008; however, had either of the incumbent presidents, Bill Clinton or President Bush, respectively, not been serving their second terms, neither Candidate Bush nor Barack Obama would have won their general elections for the President of the United States, history shows.

1976:  Iowa Caucus second place winner becomes president

• Incumbent President Gerald Ford won the Iowa Republican Caucus but didn't become president.  
• Jimmy Carter came in second place in the Iowa democrat caucus, but went on to become president. 

1980:  Iowa Caucus second place winner becomes president

• Incumbent President Jimmy Carter won the Iowa democrat caucus but was not re-elected. 
• Ronald Reagan came in second place in the Iowa Republican Caucus and went on to become president. 

1984:  Incumbent president is re-elected

• Walter Mondale won the Iowa democrat caucus 
• incumbent President Ronald Reagan was re-elected.  

1988:  Iowa Caucus third place winners go on to win their party's nominations.

• Bob Dole and Dick Gephardt were the first place winners in the Iowa Caucuses 
• the third place winners, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis went on to win their party's nominations.  
• George H.W. Bush became president. 

1992:  Iowa Caucus forth place winner became president

• Incumbant George W. Bush was serving his second term. 
• Tom Harkin won the Iowa democrat caucus and  
• Bill Clinton was the fourth place winner, and went on to become president. 

1996:  Incumbant president was re-elected.

• Incumbent President Bill Clinton was unopposed.  
• Bob Dole won the Iowa Republican Caucus.  
• President Clinton was re-elected. 

2000:  Incumbent president was serving second term.  Iowa Caucus winner became president.

• President Bill Clinton was serving his second term.  
• George W. Bush and Al Gore were the Iowa Caucus winners.  
• George W.Bush was the first candidate since 1976 to win the Iowa Caucus and go on to be president. 

2004:  Incumbant president was re-elected.

• Incumbant President George W. Bush and John Kerry were the Iowa Caucus winners.  
• President George W. Bush was re-elected.

2008:  Incumbent president was serving second term.  Iowa Caucus winner became president. 

• President George W. Bush was serving his second term.  
• Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama were the Iowa Caucus winners.  
• Barack Obama was the second of the only two candidates since 1976 to win the Iowa Caucus and go on to be president.

Barack Obama is not serving his second term YET, and history shows that unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, the opposing party winner of the Iowa Caucus for his party will not go on to win the general election for the President of the United States.

The candidate who wins the Iowa Republican Caucus probably will not win the Republican Party nomination, whether it be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or whomever else you can think of, and will not will not become the President of the United States, history shows.

Conclusion:

Got a favorite in the Republican Primary that you'd like to see in the White House? Pray that she or he loses the Iowa Republican Caucus. Then she or he will have a shot at winning the general election for the President of the United States — history shows.


© Russ J. Alan

2012 Iowa Republican Caucus Winner Won't Become President, History Shows

H istory since 1976 has shown us that if the candidate is not the incumbent president, unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, if the said candidate wins the Iowa Caucus for his party, he usually does not eventually win his party's nomination and never becomes President of the United States.


Since 1976, only two candidates who won the Iowa Caucus for their parties ever became the President of the United States. They were George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama in 2008; however, had either of the incumbent presidents, Bill Clinton or President Bush, respectively, not been serving their second terms, neither Candidate Bush nor Barack Obama would have won their general elections for the President of the United States, history shows.


In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second place with 28% of the vote, behind the winner, "Uncommitted", who received 37% of the vote, and he went on to win the democrat party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States, against the incumbent president, Gerald Ford, who, because he was the incumbent president, won the 1976 Iowa Republican Caucus.


In 1980, Jimmy Carter, the incumbent President, won the Iowa democrat caucus, but lost the general election for the President of the United States, to Ronald Reagan, who did not win the Iowa Republican Caucus, but rather came in second place. Had Ronald Reagan won the 1980 Iowa Republican Caucus, he would not have won the Republican Party nomination, nor therefore, the general election for the President of the United States, history shows.


In 1984, Walter Mondale won the Iowa democrat caucus that year, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. Ronald Reagan, the incumbent President, was unopposed and therefore won the Iowa Republican Caucus, and later won his second term in the general election for the President of the United States.


1988, Bob Dole won the Iowa Republican Caucus, but did not go on to win the Republican Party nomination. George H.W. Bush, who came in third, went on to win the Republican nomination, and later, the general election for the President of the United States.


In 1992, the incumbent president, George H. W. Bush won the Iowa Republican Caucus unopposed. Bill Clinton, did not win the Iowa democrat caucus, but rather, won third place. He went on to win the democrat party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States.


In 1996, Bill Clinton, the incumbent President, won the Iowa democrat caucus, unopposed. Bob Dole, won the Iowa Republican Caucus, and went on to win the Republican Party nomination, but. Bill Clinton went on to win the general election for his second term as President of the United States.


In 2000, Bill Clinton was serving his second term while Vice President Al Gore won the Iowa democrat caucus, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. George W. Bush won the Iowa Republican Caucus and went on to win the Republican Party nomination and the general election for the President of the United States.


In 2004, George W. Bush, the incumbent President, won the Iowa Republican Caucus, unopposed. John Kerry, won the Iowa democrat caucus, and went on to win the democrat party nomination. George W. Bush won the general election for his second term as President of the United States.


In 2008, George W. Bush was serving his second term, while Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Republican Caucus, but did not go on to win the Republican Party nomination. Barack Obama, won the Iowa democrat caucus and went on to win the democrat Party nomination, and the general election for the President of the United States.


Barack Obama is not serving his second term YET, and history shows that unless the incumbent President is serving his second term, the opposing party winner of the Iowa Caucus for his party will not go on to win the general election for the President of the United States.


The candidate who wins the Iowa Republican Caucus probably will not win the Republican Party nomination, whether it be Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, John Huntsman or whomever else you can think of, and will not become the President of the United States, history shows.


Conclusion:


Got a favorite in the Republican Primary that you'd like to see in the White House? Pray that she or he loses the Iowa Republican Caucus. Then she or he will have a shot at winning the general election for the President of the United States--history shows.

2037: The democrats' new Social Security lock box

In American politics, we hold these certain truths to be self-evident:  that President George Bush will be blamed for everything done by the democrats before he became president as well as after his administration until such time as the next Republican president is elected and that we as conservatives must accept the miserable fact that we must hear, until the return of Jesus, ad nauseum, that Bill Clinton handed President Bush a budget surplus.

In his 1995 State of the Union Address (see clip), Bill Clinton said, "...now if we balance the budget for next year, it is projected that we will then have a sizable surplus in the years that immediately follow..."

It really depends, doesn't it, on what the real meaning of "if"- is

In his State of the Union Address video, Bill went on to explain to America his proposed earmark for the assumed surplus in "four words": "Fix social security NOW!" The democrat experts in music, pop culture and sports believe he did just that.

In 1995, the Republican majority congress under the leadership of Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed a plan to eliminate the deficit in seven years.  After five or six heated budget battles with Clinton who constantly fought against them during which he made statements such as that he was not that committed to balancing the budget, congress finally balanced the budget during his last term; but instead of handing President Bush a budget surplus, the failed policies of the Clinton administration such as NAFTA, The Community Reinvestment Act (which caused the housing bubble), his war against Serbia in Bosnia and Kosovo and his missile attacks on aspirin factories in Sudan and Afghanistan, resulted in a 2002 national debt increase of $281 billion.

The Lock box

Vice President Albert Gore, in his August 18, 2000 presidential candidate nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, said, as recorded by The New York Times,

"...Putting both Social Security and Medicare in an ironclad lock box where the politicians can't touch them -- to me, that kind of common sense is a family value." 

The democrats keep trying to tell us, we would still have the Social Security Trust Fund in the lock box if it hadn't been for Jeb Bush and that electoral college thing down in Florida; instead, "George Bush and Dick Cheney took every dollar and spent it in Iraq on the war for oil".

Conservatives must also hear to the point of hurling that President Obama inherited our our national debt from the Bush administration.  The hope and change electorate will never accept that Obama's addition to the national debt is greater than that of all the other presidents in U.S. history combined.  President Bush was in his final year in office when Bill Clinton's housing bubble burst.  Near to that time, President Bush signed for $17-18 billion to bail out the automobile manufacturers.  In Obama's first nineteen months in office alone, he increased the national debt $2.5 trillion dollars. 

Now in 2011, such as it happened during Bill Clinton's presidency, the Republicans have gained control of the House of Representatives.  Pledges such as to "repeal and replace", cut spending, defund programs, vote against raising the debt ceiling and privatize Social Security have been coming from the new Republican legislators.  New directors and staff have been placed in agencies such as the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Within a few weeks of the election, new reports of the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare and other subjects were submitted to Congress.

2037:  The New Lock box

On Thursday, January 27, 2011, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director of the CBO testified before the Senate Budget Committee of the insolvency of Social Security and the current projections indicate $600 billion in deficits in the next decade as the economy struggles and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement.  This year alone,  Elmendorf said that Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, and by 2037, using the current information, Social Security funds will be exhausted.

As William Galston said in his January 28, 2011 article on the The New Republic website, "... it’s not as bad as you’ve read; it’s worse...  the headlines understate the gravity of our situation. CBO is required to use current law as the basis for its estimates—to assume, for example, that all the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012, that Medicare payments to physicians will be cut sharply, and that the alternative minimum tax will be allowed to affect millions more Americans."

The democrat Senators, up in arms to protect their "sacred cow" in the Senate Defend Social Security Caucus, came running out of the hearing ready to make statements for the press (see video):

Bernie Sanders, D Vermont, said, "Social Security has been the most successful social program in the history of this country.  We are getting sick and tired of the Republicans telling us that Social Security is collapsing when the reality is that there is a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus in Social Security and it can pay every benefit to every eligible beneficiary for the next 27 years!" 

Perhaps Senator Sanders has forgotten it is 2011.  Perhaps he meant 26 years which would be 2037.

Barbara Boxer, D California, said, "We are going to stand up and we are going to be heard.  We are going to stand up to those who would destroy Social Security but we are going to call them out on it!"

...and WE ARE GOING to hurl.

Chuck Schumer, D New York, said, "There is a move -- not to preserve Social Security from those on the other side of the aisle -- but to END it.  They want to do the same for Medicare.  What they've done is create a panic that Social Security is about to end in the next few years, then saying "Let's END it!".  They want to privatize Social Security.  Privatize equals END!"

What we want to do is privatize Chuck Schumer.

A few minutes later that day, the democrat-controlled, government, left-wing, propagandist media went into damage control mode.  Charles Osgood used a sound clip from Andrew Biggs, former deputy Social Security commissioner:

"The Social Security Trust Fund has several trillion dollars' worth of Treasury bonds in it. And even if the system is running deficits through payroll taxes, it can redeem the bonds to pay full benefits." 

See?  There's no reason to worry.  Social Security is safe.  The democrats told us "...there is a $2.7 trillion dollar surplus..."-- "...in treasury bonds they can cash in.  It will be fine until at least 2037." 

The truth is, at the time of this writing, our national debit was $14,067,018,492,708.17 and is presently increasing at the rate of $4.15 billion per day.  States such as Illinois, California, New Jersey, Illinois and others can't pay out promises such as trillions of dollars in state government pensions, they can't pay their vendors, and are facing bankruptcy.  Since the states are sovereign, they are trying to get that "little" problem worked out so they can come under the control of the federal bankruptcy courts.  Those states would lose their sovereignty to the control of the federal government.  On a national level, the Republican legislators are faced with a choice of raising the national debt ceiling even higher to pay the federal obligations, or to to cut federal programs and default on others.

2037 is not the reality.  2037 is the new lock box.  When Social Security and Medicare collapses much sooner, in a few months, or within a couple of years, in the music, pop culture and sports filled minds of the American electorate, the Republicans will have spent the surplus, and they will be blamed, and George Bush will be blamed, until the next Republican president is elected.

The Republicans take over Congress: Now What?

In less than three weeks, the Tea Partiers will find out how they did on election day.  A polar shift to a Republican majority in Congress is widely expected.  While there will be celebrations, parties and much elation, it won't be time to sing "happy days are here again" and then go back to sleep;  instead, it will be time to do the HARD work.  The big thing is not merely winning the November 2nd elections; instead, winning back our freedoms will be the Tea Partiers' new, completely overhauled role in the Conservative political process beginning January 1st. 

Karl Rove said the role of the new Conservative majority in the House and the Senate will be to "repeal, replace and reform", and that became the Tea Party's mantra.  In comparison, beginning in January 2011, instead of the normal routine of complaining in blogs, on talk radio and on Facebook of the democrats' hypocrisy and double standards as conservatives have done for so long, the job of the Tea Partiers will then be to "monitor, motivate and manipulate" their newly elected Republican (and maybe one or two "third party") representatives, "monitoring" them for any sign of weakness or "bipartisanshit", making sure that they are actively blocking ALL democrat legislation and not wasting time and taxes sponsoring legislation (due to the fact it would most assuredly end in veto), keeping their "feet to the fire" and working for the American people.

ALL we can expect to gain from ANY Conservative majority in the House and/or the Senate with President Obama in The White House is "gridlock", i.e., neither party being able to pass legislation.  Democrat sponsored bills will be blocked by the Republican majority and Republican passed bills will be vetoed by the president, at least until 2012 when the Obama administration is replaced by the Palin Administration, the Jindal Administration, the Plumber Administration, or whom's ever,  even if the Republicans win two-thirds of the seats in the House and the Senate, unless it is a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of bargain deal with the democrats, in which case, the Tea Party will spring into action.

Ordinarily, to achieve a so called, "veto-proof", two-thirds majority, Republicans would need to win 287 seats in the House of Representatives and somewhere between 66 and 67 seats in the Senate, and all want the same things for our Country; however, even with a two-thirds majority vote on a bill to repeal any democrat legislation, Republicans would not be successful because "our forefathers", the "framers" of The Constitution of whom Conservatives speak so highly, gave President Obama a little gift:

"If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law." - US Constitution  Article 1, Section 7

Yes, it is the "pocket veto".  James Madison was the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.  All President Obama has to do is "ignore" a bill sponsored by the Republicans, until the session of Congress is over.  The vetoed legislation must then be re-proposed during the next legislative session.

A Republican majority's only real power is against democrat sponsored bills -- they simply vote them down.  Unfortunately, even though the democrats will no longer hold the majority in the House of Representatives, President Obama will still be able to bypass the legislative process and advance his leftist agenda via "executive order".

Those who elected President Obama do not understand how our government operates.  One can hear people calling into liberal talk radio shows all the time saying things like, "...I think Congress should be abolished -- then the president can do whatever he wants!"  The problem is, that would make the president a dictator.  The Obama voter views the office of the president as that of a dictator.  They say things like "...look at what Bush did to this country!", "...Bill Clinton gave us a SURPLUS and then George Bush spent it all!", etc.    President Obama is no different;  he sees himself as a dictator.  In his first week in office President Obama issued five executive orders, the first one, Executive Order 13489, states that only the records he chooses to be made public will be released, for instance, his original birth certificate.  Also in his first week he issued an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, another to stop water boarding.  In his first month in office he issued sixteen executive orders.  In 2009 he issued thirty-nine executive orders and in 2010, so far, he has issued twenty-six executive orders.  This president believes he does not need the legislative process to advance his agenda.

Can a Conservative majority in Congress kill a president's executive order?  Yes, with a two-thirds majority, but then the matter can and will be put before the Supreme Court.  In the history of our nation, the Supreme Court has only overturned TWO (2) executive orders.

Gridlock can have positive effects, such as with the economy.  As Rush Limbaugh has so eloquently explained, as well as have many noted economists, the economy doesn't do well when businesses are uncertain of what will come down from the federal government in the form of regulation and taxation.  On the other hand, Wall Street and the business world thrives on certainty, and in "gridlock", the certainty is that no legislation, regulation or taxation is expected from the federal government.  While it may be good for the economy indirectly, the fact that taxpayers pay the salaries of members of congress and the president, gridlock is an inefficient "Rube Goldberg" method to achieve a strong stock market. 

The Internet is "a-twitter" with Conservatives screaming for the impeachment of this president.  Several of the Republican congressional candidates have expressed their intentions to move for impeachment.  Such impeachment proceedings will need to be against the vice president as well.   A Conservative majority in the House and the Senate can get this done.

The new job of the Tea Partiers is to work their newly elected Republican representatives.  Just like President Obama can't legitimately blame George Bush for unemployment, the failed stimulus and the $1.3 trillion dollar deficit, Conservatives will no longer be able to entirely blame the democrats if we lose our country.  Tea Partiers must focus their energy solely on keeping their newly elected Republican majority working to regain our freedoms.  After the election, the success or failure of the United States of America will be solely in the hands of the Republicans.

My name is not Sweetie - I am your customer. Please call me Sir.

There is a problem in American business that seems to have grown to epidemic proportions.  It is a problem that has caused millions of patrons unnecessary pain, anger, aggravation and discomfort.  Now that the problem has been identified, it is possible to stop it once and for all, but we need the help of all who are reading this article.  Please print, make hundreds and thousands of copies, post it on bulletin boards, telephone poles, everywhere.  Email it to everyone you know.  I am begging you to get the word out.  I can't take it anymore.

Are you the mom or the dad of a teenage daughter who is about to start their first entry-level job, probably as a cashier in a store or fast-food restaurant? 

Are you a manager of a convenience store, fast-food restaurant or what have you, with teenage to college age female cashiers or waitresses working in your store?  Are you out front watching and listening to these youthful female employees or are you hiding in the back office, playing games and reading articles on the Internet while eating french fries because the district or regional manager is not visiting today?

It is time for moms and dads and grandpas and grandmas to sit down at the table with their teenage to college age daughters who are about to take their first entry-level jobs or who have already started their career path in customer service positions at fast food establishments, convenience stores, etc., and teach them that mature, adult male customers are to be called "Sir".   It is time for store managers (who aren't deservedly about to be terminated) to regularly meet with their young female staff who have direct contact with customers, and explain to them, proper business etiquette.

By AARP standards, I am a male who has just entered my senior years, and one thing that irritates me to the point of biting a number 2 pencil in half with my eye teeth, is to be condescendingly called "Hun" or "Sweetie" by your little, darling, precious, angel daughter who is young enough to be my grand daughter and who many  times has a tattoo on her neck and/or a pierced nasal and/or lip(s) and/or has an earring in the middle of her tongue,  and who finishes my sentences -- because she has the patience of a gnat and a brain the size of a walnut -- while I am trying to articulate my business with her in two-second sound bytes (because I am aware of the two previously mentioned facts) as she ends each and every one of her sentences with "Sweetie", "Hun", "Baby", or some other term of condescension,  as if she is "Flo" at Mel's diner.

This problem doesn't seem to exist among young male customer service employees.  I've never had a teenage boy at a cash register or waiting my table call me "Sweetie" or "Hun"-- it may only be because I don't go to gay establishments. If they call me anything it is usually "Sir". They may have said stuff like "Ok man, hurry back" or "OK Bud, thanks alot" and maybe it should, but that doesn't bother me. I can live with that.

Hopefully Grandpa and Grandma, it's not too late to teach your adult children to respect their elders, and not too late for your children to teach your grand daughter to call older men "Sir".  Managers, it is your job to teach your young female front line workers to call your customers Ma'am and Sir. 

Some of you men who are reading this are in absolute agreement with me.  Other toothless rednecks are saying to me right now "Lighten up!  I like it when them li'l old young baby dolls call me Hun and Sweetie an thangs like 'at!"  And I say that it is because you are a pedophile and probably a statutory rapist and most probably a democrat.

I have thought countless hours about ways I can get this message to the young females who insist on calling me "Babe", "Darlin'", etc., to get them to cease immediately. I have thought of having a few t-shirts printed to say "My name is SIR -- I am your CUSTOMER", but I know this would only cause me more frustration because I wouldn't have it on when I needed it, because I wouldn't want to wear it all the time, and I would have to keep it in my vehicle and change my shirt in my car every time I want a taco, or inevitably I would have unknowingly dropped mustard down the shirt which would cause me to look like a redneck. I have thought about getting business cards printed up with the same message, and after the first "HUN", I could pull one out and hand it over, but then I think, "they probably can't read". Maybe if I could do some kind of graphics like they use for the different sandwiches and fries on McDonald's cash register keys... no, they would probably not understand the pictures and the manager hiding in the back office would call the police and report me as a pedophile.

Please tell your daughters, grand daughters and young female customer service employees, to stop using what they think are "terms of endearment" which are actually "terms of condescension" when dealing with customers. 

My name is not "Honey".  I am your customer --  Please call me "Sir" (Unless you want to have sex).

Union Workers forced to finance tax break for corporation through payroll deduction

The Missouri State Senate passed a bill which will require United Auto Workers (UAW) employees to finance, through payroll deduction for up to ten years, a tax incentive for Ford Motor Company to keep open it's Claycomo, Missouri manufacturing plant.


On Thursday, July 15, 2010, Missouri Democrat Governor Jay Nixon signed the controversial Missouri Senate bill SB-2, the bill to establish The Manufacturing Jobs Act, nicknamed the "Ford Bill", a plan to provide tax incentives of up to $150 million dollars to Ford Motor Company for keeping open their manufacturing plant in Claycomo, Missouri near Kansas City, which hires more than 3700 employees.

The bill's opponents called it another "bailout". The bills chief opponent, Republican Senator Chuck Purgason, who argued that the "government shouldn't pick winners and losers and tax breaks should be across the board to all Missouri businesses large and small", stood for twenty hours Tuesday afternoon through Wednesday morning delivering a filibuster. The bill was finally voted into law by the 24-10 Republican majority Missouri State Senate, with a 20-7 vote.

As Governor Jay Nixon signed the bill at the Claycomo plant, he received a standing ovation from the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 249 in Claycomo, but little mention was given to how the bill will be funded.

The bill summary explains how the tax incentive will work, the basic idea being that Ford Motor Company will be able to keep in their possession state income tax from employee payroll deductions for up to 10 years and explains the conditions a company must meet in order to retain those employee payroll deductions as an incentive.

In reality, the incentive is not speaking of taxes that Ford Motor Company pays. The incentive is that Ford Motor Company will keep in their bank account, or to use as they wish, Missouri state tax deductions taken from the United Auto Workers (UAW) union employees' paychecks. Translation: UAW workers will pay Ford Motor Company's tax incentive through payroll deduction.

Bubba, a UAW employee at the Ford Claycomo, Missouri plant since 1984, who wished to remain anonymous said,

"You mean to tell me that I'm going to keep having state tax taken out of my paycheck and Ford's just going to keep it?... for 10 years? ...That just ain't right! ...So we're going to be payin' Ford to keep our job? That's going to be like paying another union due ain't it?"

Now that this fact has been pointed out, it will be very interesting how this incentive program for Ford's Claycomo, Missouri plant will pan out, assuming Ford will choose to keep the plant open at all. Many are expecting Ford to close the plant regardless of the tax incentive, as they did not propose the plan in the initial stages.

The question is, will the UAW union employees be OK with the idea of being forced to pay the tax incentive for a "rich corporation?"