• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
30 states petition federal government to secede after election

I am fascinated that it is a combination of both red states and blue states. I wonder if we will get to a point where secession from the US happens, or if the US will just break up into 5 or 6 parts.
Click to expand...

They wanna secede? OK. But before any state does, we expect that state to pay the United States the going rate for the federal lands within the state. Wouldn't hurt Texas much, but Nevada has huge tracts of OUR land. And say good bye to the federal subsidies, money for air and army bases (which are also OURS). And without our army, navy and air force, Mexico might be taking back Texas and California. :p And don't be sneaking over the border to visit your relatives in the good ole USA. We will deal harshly with illegal immigrants.

Sour grapes. Boo hoo. The majority of the nation didn't vote for your candidate, so you want to take your ball and go home. Well, much of that ball is still OURS. So quit your whining. If we could take eight years of Dubya, surely you can take four more of Obama.
 
michaelskis said:
What if it does happen. Do you think that particular states would group together or do you think we will have the US, with several independent nations among the remaining 20? Or do you think it would be a total collapse of the US? I also think that 40,000 signatures in TX is enough to get people's attention.

Why do you think that all these states want to leave the union? Interestingly enough, many historians say that the Civil war was about states rights as much as about slavery. Here is an interesting article on it. I don't agree with this 100% but there is quite a bit of truth to what he says.
Click to expand...

States would try to group together, just like the Confederacy. And then the Civil War happened. A Civil War would happen again, with disastrous consequences.

Do the States that want to secede really want to go through Reconstruction again?

Washington D.C. will never allow a State to secede. Just like it was never an option with Lincoln and the Republicans. It was seen as a rebellion, not a secession.
 
michaelskis said:
30 states petition federal government to secede after election

I am fascinated that it is a combination of both red states and blue states. I wonder if we will get to a point where secession from the US happens, or if the US will just break up into 5 or 6 parts.
Click to expand...

I'm so used to stupid secession talk in Texas that it is like white noise to me. No one is seceding. Even Perry has been saying that such talk is foolish (and he's the jackass that started the latest round of it).
 
otterpop said:
They wanna secede? OK. But before any state does, we expect that state to pay the United States the going rate for the federal lands within the state. Wouldn't hurt Texas much, but Nevada has huge tracts of OUR land. And say good bye to the federal subsidies, money for air and army bases (which are also OURS). And without our army, navy and air force, Mexico might be taking back Texas and California. :p And don't be sneaking over the border to visit your relatives in the good ole USA. We will deal harshly with illegal immigrants.

Sour grapes. Boo hoo. The majority of the nation didn't vote for your candidate, so you want to take your ball and go home. Well, much of that ball is still OURS. So quit your whining. If we could take eight years of Dubya, surely you can take four more of Obama.
Click to expand...

Otterpop, maybe you should go back and read post number #2295 in this tread before you say I am whining.
 
I wonder if any of the petition signers are on Social Security or Medicare? Do you suppose any of them like the idea of those payments stopping.
 
giff57 said:
I wonder if any of the petition signers are on Social Security or Medicare? Do you suppose any of them like the idea of those payments stopping.
Click to expand...

That is a good question. Something tells me that they wouldn't bite the hand that feeds them though. (Just using the phrase and not comparing those on assistance to dogs. Don't want to get anyone all worked up in here....)
 
Ohio has only about 100 signatures. These people are all morons. If you sign a petition to secede you are a moron. I am sorry to be so blunt, but if you don't understand that this is the greatest country in the world, and want to leave it because you didn't get your guy in office, cry me a river. Take your participation award and go home. Geez people. Grow up. Our democratic process does not give you the right to be a winner all the time. Next election try to be more inclusive and you might win?
 
The funny thing is most of those states wanting to succeed are the ones getting more in federal spending than they pay in taxes. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

It's funny, and I'm sure these clowns don't get the irony of claiming they are the "true patriots" while wanting to leave America everytime they don't get their way. But listening to some right wing talk radio this morning, let's not make any mistake about what this is really about. This is primarily about racism. Caller after caller is yelling about how they no longer want to be part of the country if American elections will no longer be decided by white Americans, who they refer to as the "real americans" and instead by the lazy unproductive minorities. It's not even a dog whistle or thinly vieled racism. It's blatent and outright complaining that minorities are a lesser class of people than whites. I wish they would follow through with their whiney threats and leave the country. Bunch of racist no-nothing bozos.

Tide said:
After financial collapse of the country I can see the interest at its highest. Why should prosperous states (Georgia) "carry" certain states (California, as examples) will be the rationale. Will succession succeed, I don't know
Click to expand...
.

nobody is carrying Cali. California is by far the most economically productive state in the union. Our GDP greatly exceeds any other state. Our problem is simply that we get back so much less in federal spending than we pay. We are carrying the burden of the loser states.
 
michaelskis said:
Otterpop, maybe you should go back and read post number #2295 in this tread before you say I am whining.
Click to expand...

When I used "you", I was not referring to you personally. If I offended you, then I apologize because it was not my intent to call you a whiner. Because I used your post as a quote to comment on the whole it secession discussion, I understand how you (and I am referring to you this time) could conclude that I was attacking you. Once again, I meant no offense and am sorry I did not word my comments more succinctly.

I meant "you" as in those people who are exhibiting this knee-jerk. let's throw the baby out with the bathwater response to getting beat fair and square in an election.
 
michaelskis said:
[snip]Why do you think that all these states want to leave the union?
Click to expand...
Um, I don't think "all these states want to leave the union". I think 0.01% of the population signed a petition because they were feeling churlish that day.
michaelskis said:
Interestingly enough, many historians say that the Civil war was about states rights as much as about slavery. Here is an interesting article on it. I don't agree with this 100% but there is quite a bit of truth to what he says.
Click to expand...
What parts of the article specifically do you disagree with?
 
otterpop said:
When I used "you", I was not referring to you personally. If I offended you, then I apologize because it was not my intent to call you a whiner. Because I used your post as a quote to comment on the whole it secession discussion, I understand how you (and I am referring to you this time) could conclude that I was attacking you. Once again, I meant no offense and am sorry I did not word my comments more succinctly.

I meant "you" as in those people who are exhibiting this knee-jerk. let's throw the baby out with the bathwater response to getting beat fair and square in an election.
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that and the only reason I thought it might be directed at me was because my post was quoted. I agree with your post though. People do need to quit whining and get over the fact that Obama won. I did not vote for him and I do not like his policies, but he did win. It is time for people to move on, come together and get things done.
 
imaplanner said:
It's funny, and I'm sure these clowns don't get the irony of claiming they are the "true patriots" while wanting to leave America everytime they don't get their way. But listening to some right wing talk radio this morning, let's not make any mistake about what this is really about. This is primarily about racism. Caller after caller is yelling about how they no longer want to be part of the country if American elections will no longer be decided by white Americans, who they refer to as the "real americans" and instead by the lazy unproductive minorities. It's not even a dog whistle or thinly vieled racism. It's blatent and outright complaining that minorities are a lesser class of people than whites. I wish they would follow through with their whiney threats and leave the country. Bunch of racist no-nothing bozos
Click to expand...

The latest narrative about why Romney lost that seems to be gaining some traction derives from the 47 percent comment. I heard Anne Coulter say that "the takers now outnumber the makers" as well as some other ridiculous comments about "traditional Americans." That seems to be something people are glomming onto. That the only reasonable explanation for the election's outcome is that people who suck at the teat of government voted in record numbers to make sure they can still get their benefits. Pulease. That does not even merit a response its so absurd.

The whole secessionist meme is interesting, too and I note that after Bush was re-elected (and at other times in recent history) many progressives threatened to move to Canada. I think its interesting the difference in reaction - one says I want my state to secede, the other says I'm leaving altogether. Frankly, leaving the country sounds a whole lot easier than seceding, but what do I know? But really, secession has got to be one of the more ridiculous propositions I can imagine. As others have aptly said, IF it were even possible, the lack of a financial base, trade relations, defense, currency, jobs, etc. would render it a total and utter disaster. C'mon, people, we're all Americans. Can't we actually have constructive dialogues to tackle our problems? Or does pouting feel better? I was terrified by the prospect of a Romney victory, but I also wasn't planning to leave the country or secede over it. Its still my country and I have a role to play regardless of who the president is. And I realize that not everyone shares my opinion, so I live with it and feel proud that we can even have such discussions and disagreements.

Meanwhile Puerto Rico voted to JOIN the union...

Lastly, something I have wanted to say for a while is that in all this talk about immigration reform (in which we clearly seem to be talking about Mexicans) people seem to forget that over the summer, immigration from Asia eclipsed immigration from Latin America. So, when people talk about "those people" coming into this country in record numbers and changing everything, are they really thinking about folks from Asia, or is it all Mexican all the time?

Oh, and 5 points to Maister for using "churlish" correctly in a sentence!
 
I was thinking about a related topic the other day… after George W. Bush was re-elected, it kinda made sense for Democrats to threaten to / joke about moving to Canada or Europe, where there are some socialist or progressive policies that would align with some Democratic stances/beliefs. But what countries could upset Republicans move to after this election, that would be both fiscally conservative and conservative Christian? There are some conservative South American countries but I think they’re more Catholic than other Christian denominations.
 
wahday said:
Lastly, something I have wanted to say for a while is that in all this talk about immigration reform (in which we clearly seem to be talking about Mexicans) people seem to forget that over the summer, immigration from Asia eclipsed immigration from Latin America. So, when people talk about "those people" coming into this country in record numbers and changing everything, are they really thinking about folks from Asia, or is it all Mexican all the time?
Click to expand...

Still bad news for the Republicans, though. Obama won 72% of the Asian vote and only 71% of the Latino vote.

As for it "all Mexican all the time", ever wonder why nobody ever worries about illegal immigration from Canada or from Ireland when both of those countries contribute to the illegal population, especially the Canadians?
 
terraplnr said:
I was thinking about a related topic the other day… after George W. Bush was re-elected, it kinda made sense for Democrats to threaten to / joke about moving to Canada or Europe, where there are some socialist or progressive policies that would align with some Democratic stances/beliefs. But what countries could upset Republicans move to after this election, that would be both fiscally conservative and conservative Christian? There are some conservative South American countries but I think they’re more Catholic than other Christian denominations.
Click to expand...

I think it stems from this bubble that some people immerse themselves in. They are being told that Obama and current America is a socialist disaster. It fascinates me that people are talking about moving to Germany, Canada and the UK because of Obamacare and a potential top marginal tax rate of about 39%. Every single one of those countries has a much higher top marginal tax rate and a truly socialist health care system. Outside of the right-wing bubble, the reality is that America's left is so much more conservative than any of those countries, and even than most of those countries conservative parties. The right-wing bubble news entertainment cabal is doing their followers a huge disservice by mininforming them on so many topics.
 
Now the news is full of stories about CEOs who are threatening to lay off people and cut the hours of workers because they will be required to provide health care under "Obamacare." So the CEOs of Papa Johns, Applebees and Jimmy Johns have their tighty-whities in a bunch. Health care for our workers? What will they demand next - a living wage? Safer working conditions?

Food service is a dnagerous line of work. I worked fast food. Nearly cut off the tip of my finger on the job and had a hell of a time getting my worker's comp. I did get to keep the tip of my finger, though, so I guess I should be grateful for that.

It is a shame. I really like those Jimmy John sandwiches. Didn't know the head honcho was such a dips**t.
 
That Papa Johns guy ticked me off. Instead of raising the price of a pizza 14 cents, he'd rather cut his employees' hours.
 
NHPlanner said:
Or he could simply not "give away" 2 million free pizzas during football season. Figure at $10 a pizza, there's $20 million right there. :-{

(stolen from John Stewart... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/...a-johns-ceo-shouldve-pushed-for-single-payer/)
Click to expand...

But that is the kicker. There are millions of ways for CEOs to deal with rough patches. They could maybe make a lower profit margin for a bit, or not pay themselves $25 million for that year.... but instead they take the easy and politically stupid excuse of "having" to fire employees who make little to nothing compared to them.

It is a ploy to scare people into believing a false sense of urgency. It didn't work in this election. If the GOP doesn't stop trying to make this an election about makers and takers, they are going to have a long road ahead.
 
NHPlanner said:
Or he could simply not "give away" 2 million free pizzas during football season. Figure at $10 a pizza, there's $20 million right there. :-{

(stolen from John Stewart... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/...a-johns-ceo-shouldve-pushed-for-single-payer/)
Click to expand...

There are plenty of well run businesses that have no issues with Obama or Obamacare. I have a strong sense that the ones complaining about everything are not only not well run, but would be close to failing regardless of who is our president. The Applebee's guy is a particular joke. He's refusing to hire people because Obama was re-elected? Let's see how well that works out for him. His business is hurting? Maybe because his business model is outdated.

The Papa Johns guy is a huge joke. Obama has been so bad for his business that he went from paying himself 600k a year in 2008 to nearly 3 million a year in 2011.

http://insiders.morningstar.com/tra...sation.action?t=PZZA&region=USA&culture=en_US
 
otterpop said:
Now the news is full of stories about CEOs who are threatening to lay off people and cut the hours of workers because they will be required to provide health care under "Obamacare." So the CEOs of Papa Johns, Applebees and Jimmy Johns have their tighty-whities in a bunch. Health care for our workers? What will they demand next - a living wage? Safer working conditions?

Food service is a dnagerous line of work. I worked fast food. Nearly cut off the tip of my finger on the job and had a hell of a time getting my worker's comp. I did get to keep the tip of my finger, though, so I guess I should be grateful for that.

It is a shame. I really like those Jimmy John sandwiches. Didn't know the head honcho was such a dips**t.
Click to expand...

Well, the list of chain restaurants that I patronize just shrank. Not that Papa John's is any good. I can get better pizza in the local Tops Supermarket "hot bar" not to mention any of the local pizzarias, bars or bowling alleys.
 
I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.

Personally, I agree with their principle on it. McDonald's and most fast food places does the exact same thing every time the minimum wage goes up. They either lay off people or jack their prices up.
 
michaelskis said:
I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.

Personally, I agree with their principle on it. McDonald's and most fast food places does the exact same thing every time the minimum wage goes up. They either lay off people or jack their prices up.
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect that for most, if not all, retail businesses will follow along with the 29.5 hour max week with no potential for overtime for their hourly non-management employees, including those who are now full-time with at least some bennies, as a 'new normal' - and say nothing about 'Why?' simply to avoid the political hassles. And look for salaried lower management (ie, local store and department managers and shift runners) to also at least be dumped into the Exchanges™. To not do so will place those businesses at a serious, perhaps fatal, competitive disadvantage.

This is Basic Econ 101 and is a glaring example of the unintended consequences that will happen when rules are changed.

Mike
 
michaelskis said:
I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.

Personally, I agree with their principle on it. McDonald's and most fast food places does the exact same thing every time the minimum wage goes up. They either lay off people or jack their prices up.
Click to expand...

I doubt you are going to find disagreement. It's their business and they should do what is in their best interest. Refusing to hire employees is only going to hurt their business, but that's up to them. Successful businesses do what is in the best interest of the business. Papa Johns is a great example. Obamacare will cost about 3 to 4 cents a pizza. And actually less than one percent of his operating costs according to Forbes. Less than his pizza giveaway. http://www.forbes.com/sites/calebme...lionaire-papa-john-schnatters-obamacare-math/ Less than many other yearly cost of business adjustments. But he wants to make a political statement. In doing so he will likely harm his business, and also make his business less attractive for quality employees. That's his right.

You mention mcdonalds. They are a successful business. When costs go up slightly, they adjust. They don't make a political statement, and they don't tell their employees they will take it out on them. They just adjust. So again, no disagreement from me. They should adjust how they feel they need to.

Obamacare is the law. It's time to let the market do its thing. Successful businesses will continue to succeed. Businesses that were close to failing may fail. Others will step up in their place. Talented employees will seek better employers.
 
Last edited:
The Papa Johns thing is what should happen. Classic economics describes what are known as externalities: costs that are not borne by a producer. In this case its health care. PJ employees will still use it, only its paid by taxpayers and people with insurance. This subsidizes the cost of pizzas. These subsidies increase pizza consumption which is even worse because of the health effects of poor nutrition value foods.

So PJ can either raise prices or employ lower producing employees. Either way, consumers of pizza will now pay the burden of the PJ employees health care either by paying more or having lower quality pizza or longer delivery times. An economic distortion has been eliminated.
 
Gotta Speakup said:
The Papa Johns thing is what should happen. Classic economics describes what are known as externalities: costs that are not borne by a producer. In this case its health care. PJ employees will still use it, only its paid by taxpayers and people with insurance. This subsidizes the cost of pizzas. These subsidies increase pizza consumption which is even worse because of the health effects of poor nutrition value foods.

So PJ can either raise prices or employ lower producing employees. Either way, consumers of pizza will now pay the burden of the PJ employees health care either by paying more or having lower quality pizza or longer delivery times. An economic distortion has been eliminated.
Click to expand...

I love how educated our members are. This is so clearly put. The hidden costs of healthcare are not being borne by business.

Everyone wants the market to "work", but we cannot pretend much longer that business isn't heavily subsidized by government. If you want smaller government, you are going to have to prove your business model is strong enough to pay for ALL the costs associated with your business. For a very long time we have taxed business at a lower rate to create jobs, we have given them discounts on land or regulations, and we have subsidized their ability to be successful. When business leaders start crying about having to cover more costs, I feel very little sorrow for them. There is a multitude of ways to deal with these costs, they just haven't built them into their business model because they thought they could get a free ride.

Like gas prices or electric prices rising because of carbon taxes or higher cost cigarettes, there are costs in the system that are subsidized for a long time... but at some point you have to put that cost back on the business. If people want to buy it, they will. The cost, service, and value will still create either a successful or a non-successful business.
 
Politics gone stupid

Example 1.
michaelskis said:
I know people are not going to agree with me, but I say hey, it's there (I think you mean 'their') businesses. You don't have to eat there or shop there if you don't like how they do business.
.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is their business and they can exapnd or kill it if they'd like. Personally we aren't going to buy anymore PJ pizzas.


Example 2. Nine Republican Wisconsin Senators have sponsored a bill to arrest any federal employee implementing 'Obamacare' in the state:
http://gawker.com/5961050/9-wiscons...st-federal-officials-that-implement-obamacare



Example 3. John McCain (and several other Republicans) skipped a classified Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee briefing on the Benghazi consulate attack in order to hold a press conference about the lack of information on the Benghazi consulate attack. You and I would have been immediatley fired for that!
 
Planit said:
Example 3. John McCain (and several other Republicans) skipped a classified Senate Homeland Security & Government Affairs Committee briefing on the Benghazi consulate attack in order to hold a press conference about the lack of information on the Benghazi consulate attack. You and I would have been immediatley fired for that!
Click to expand...

That's not stupid. They are telling you that there is no there there on the Benghazi thing. The base and other low-information voters aren't able to see this posturing, and they are served up red meat. The majority sees that this is all political posturing and can move on with their lives.
 
michaelskis said:
And so the unions killed the tweenkie.
Click to expand...

If so, then Hostesses' business model was flawed.

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” - Lincoln

"I am glad to know that there is a system of labor where the laborer can strike if he wants to. I wish to God that such a system prevailed all over the world." - ABRAHAM LINCOLN, speech, Mar. 5, 1860
 
"Benghazi" is just a creation of Fox news and nothing more. A horrible tragedy, but not a cover-up by any means. Only the 30% or so of the American populace that treats Fox news as gospel is convinced otherwise.
 
This is a very interesting discussion. I will only add that the broohaha over healthcare costs is, in my opinion, a red herring. The cost of doing business changes all the time and more often than not, it goes up. The main difference here is that the cause of those increases in prices are easily identifiable (ie. the guvment).

The cost of gas and therefore transportation has risen substantially in the last decade.

Rents on buildings go up.

The cost of materials is constantly rising as are utilities costs on those buildings.

Accommodating these rising costs is usually built into budget projections and long term financial planning for the business. This healthcare cost issue has been public and on the table for, what, 3 or 4 years now? What were they doing to plan all that time? Were they just crossing their fingers and hoping it would get repealed? Because if so, and if they neglected to have any kind of contingency plan, that's just really bad management.

Its all about context. For whatever reason, these complaining businesses see the healthcare issue as an affront to their bottom line, but these other costs they just absorb by raising costs to the consumer or reducing profits. What gives?
 
michaelskis said:
And so the unions killed the tweenkie.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that labor wasn't a factor but it doesn't sound like that's what ultimately did Hostess in. Having so little capital that a strike would bankrupt a company indicates that were some bigger issues at play such as a flawed business model or poor management. Although it's easier for management just to blame the unions rather than their own shortcomings.
 
Blide said:
I won't argue that labor wasn't a factor but it doesn't sound like that's what ultimately did Hostess in. Having so little capital that a strike would bankrupt a company indicates that were some bigger issues at play such as a flawed business model or poor management. Although it's easier for management just to blame the unions rather than their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...

My wife and I were saying this last night. It sounds like the company was half in the toilet anyway and the strike is becoming catalyst/diversion/excuse to push the closures and liquidation up and deflect some scrutiny and blame. It's a lousy time for all these people to be looking at losing their jobs.
 
Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.

hilldweller said:
"Benghazi" is just a creation of Fox news and nothing more. A horrible tragedy, but not a cover-up by any means. Only the 30% or so of the American populace that treats Fox news as gospel is convinced otherwise.
Click to expand...

Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

So how much of it is a lie? I don't know.
 
michaelskis said:
Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.
Click to expand...

I don't like unions, but I accept their right to collectively bargain and strike.

If the market demand for Wonder Bread and Twinkies is still there, then a new company will fill the void and hire workers to create the product.

Labor comes before capital, and if the workers determined that losing their jobs was the lesser of two evils, then they should have the power to make that decision.
 
This is a complicated case and I don’t think its easy to stick the blame so squarely on the Unions. Hostess has been in financial crisis for about a decade. They filed for bankruptcy in January for the second time since 2004. Workers had already made a number of concessions since that time and an earlier threat to liquidate if unions didn’t fall in line with lower wages never materialized.

There were other factors at play in all of this, including increases in vendor payment terms (sellers taking a larger cut of the profits), changing consumer tastes (how much have they really diversified their products to keep pace with changing markets? Their products look exactly the same as when I was a kid) and high commodity costs. Many have also cited years of financial mismanagement including a lack of capital investments to legacy their labor costs.

Given all of these factors and no discernible change or improvement in management practices, the unions generally felt that the wage cuts were not a long-term, sustainable solution to the problems the company was facing.
 
michaelskis said:
Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's nearly that simple. But its a fun game to play. I suppose a rebuttal in similar terms might be - what would you have done mskis? Forced the employees to work there? Make them accept pay cuts and work they don't want to do? Employees shouldn't be allowed to quit or to threaten to quit? Maybe we can use the military to force workers to do what companies want.
 
From Bloomberg:
In the past 15 months, Hostess has unilaterally ended contractually obligated payments to the workers' pension plan, and demanded as much as 32 percent cuts in wages and benefits, the union said in the statement.
Click to expand...

If true, it's not hard to see why the workers refused to end the strike. There's got to a be a point when it's not even worth working for a company any longer and it seems like most of those union members felt it had reached that point.

I honestly think Hostess was just trying to delay the inevitable here. The company was going to go under, it was just a matter of when. The unions just brought about its demise sooner than management or the private equity company would have liked.
 
michaelskis said:
Lest's see, Hostess needs to cut costs, union workers don't like the idea of a pay cut so they go on strike. Strike makes it harder for them to make a profit, and the company warns the unions that if the employees don't return and accept they pay cut, they will have to close doors. Their labor cost was the most expensive part of there operation and it was going to go up.

So instead of taking a small pay cut, 18,000 will take a pay elimination, might not get any of their pensions as the company will be liquidating everything. The Government and the Banks will get the first share, pensions will get what ever is left over.

Unions killed the company. Simple as that. You are right, it was a bad business model to let the unions have that much power for that long.
Click to expand...

Bad leadership killed Hostess. That had very little operating capital (one of the biggest sins in running a business, large or small), which is why they've filed bankruptcy twice in the last decade. The "restructuring" they were doing was simply delaying the inevitable, as liquidation was going to happen within the next couple of years anyway. They were really using this restructuring time to try to build value for a more profitable liquidation. The unions simply gave Hostess leadership an out to blame someone other than themselves for the situation.
 
It is heartening to know in these tough economic times and high unemployment that those "job creators" we've heard so much about are stepping up by threatening to fire their minimum wage employees or at least cut their hours. Even though he lost the election, that old Romney spirit is being carried on by those brave CEOs who also "like to fire people who provide a service" for them.

:unitedstates: :unitedstates: :unitedstates:
 
michaelskis said:
Petraeus testifies CIA's Libya talking points were changed, lawmaker says

So how much of it is a lie? I don't know.
Click to expand...

You are aware that Petraeus is saying pretty much the same thing that the administration has been saying. It was likely an act of terror that used the protests as a cover. Susan Rice was saying that. Obama said it on the day or two after the attack. What exactly is the scandal here you are concerned about? One minute Fox is saying Obama should have defended the free speech of a video (he did-documented on video), then he should have called it terrorism (he did-documented on video), then he watched the attack live on tv and ordered help to stand down because he hates America (have fun with that one). Now is it back to the fact that they knew it was terror and didn't say so (they did - see documented on video)? There is a reason why people call it the right-wing bubble of misinformation. It seems increasingly likely that much of the sitting GOP congress is getting all their news from Fox as well- as evident by McCain and others holding a press conference to complain and talk impeachment because of the supposed lack of information while skipping a hearing to provide classified information.

Ask yourself this, what is the conspiracy exactly? If, like Fox keeps saying, Obama watched live video of the attack and ordered people to stand down and not help his own appointed ambassador because he secretely sides with islamic radicals, then this is a serious problem. Do you really think that is the case?
 
imaplanner said:
You are aware that Petraeus is saying pretty much the same thing that the administration has been saying. It was likely an act of terror that used the protests as a cover. Susan Rice was saying that. Obama said it on the day or two after the attack. What exactly is the scandal here you are concerned about? One minute Fox is saying Obama should have defended the free speech of a video (he did-documented on video), then he should have called it terrorism (he did-documented on video), then he watched the attack live on tv and ordered help to stand down because he hates America (have fun with that one). Now is it back to the fact that they knew it was terror and didn't say so (they did - see documented on video)? There is a reason why people call it the right-wing bubble of misinformation. It seems increasingly likely that much of the sitting GOP congress is getting all their news from Fox as well- as evident by McCain and others holding a press conference to complain and talk impeachment because of the supposed lack of information while skipping a hearing to provide classified information.

Ask yourself this, what is the conspiracy exactly? If, like Fox keeps saying, Obama watched live video of the attack and ordered people to stand down and not help his own appointed ambassador because he secretely sides with islamic radicals, then this is a serious problem. Do you really think that is the case?
Click to expand...

Last night my wife asked me what this whole thing was about, and I honestly couldn't think of what the issue was.

Something about the White House changing talking points??

The GOP is looking for anything they can to undermine this administration. Please focus on taxes, deficit reduction, and jobs, not on this shit.

If you want to have a real discussion about faulty intelligence data, then go back about 10 years when a Republican administration used it to take the country to war.
 
Back
Top