START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Reason Soaking The Rich Doesn't Work Illustrated: Can't Buy A Twinkie.


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, u.s., usa, news, politics )

Cam
- 602 days ago - musingsofamadconservative.blogspot.ca
You can put me in that rare category of individual who was never really fond of Twinkies, even as a kid. I was always much more fond of Ding Dongs and Ho Ho's.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Cam V. (417)
Friday November 16, 2012, 8:51 pm
You can put me in that rare category of individual who was never really fond of Twinkies, even as a kid. I was always much more fond of Ding Dongs and Ho Ho's. Here's the good news though, Little Debbie makes a product which she calls Swill Rolls, that are ounce for ounce the exact same thing. So I'm all set. But the latest bit of sad news, that the unions finally succeeded in killing off another American icon, Continental Baking Corporation, will no doubt be blamed on those evil Bain Capital types of Wall Street vultures just circling above our country in search of the next working man's carcass on which to further feed their collective greed. Richard Trumka, the single most frequent visitor to the Obama White House, according to the somewhat less than transparent logs offered up by a President who laughably won some kind of an award for transparency, has wasted no time in denouncing the owners of the former CBC as enemies of middle class workers everywhere.

The most bizarre thing happened though on their way to receiving that most deserved tongue lashing from the self anointed champion of all things related to union thuggery, and that is that while Richard Trumka is denouncing the owners of CBC as evil pricks who hate workers and wish to push the middle class over a cliff, that group of people does not actually exist anymore. CBC is no more, as of 5:00 PM last night. Since there is no more CBC, there can be no more CBC owners. Such are the wages of Obamanomics, and such is the result that America deserves for having elected this man as our President, and then reelecting him to a second term.

The most severe lesson about our system of taxation is that wealth in this country is not taxed, income is. So, when Barack Obama and his merry band of mindless minions bleat on about asking the rich to pay, "their fair share," or to pay, "just a little more," in the form of income tax rates going up, know that this method of raising revenue is doomed to the same exact failure as has always been the case when tried. Doomed to the same exact failure by the way is the effort to get the so called rich to pay one more thin dime than they have ever paid. One of the most glaring reasons for this is the simple fact that with a large asset base on which to live, the rich do not need to earn an income, they can simply not invest their funds, and therefore risk their assets in order to maintain their lifestyles. So, when the current environment dictates that America hates those who make money, they can go on living without making another cent.

What that decrease in investment represents is a loss of capital investment in those things that provide jobs for people who can not maintain their lifestyles without some sort of an income. The example of that would be Continental Baking Corporation. Why should the owners of that company continue to lose money on an ongoing basis for no other purpose than to provide union pay offs and to be labeled as enemies to America. I would say that they have taken their toys and gone home, except that they seem to have left their toys at the play ground, and simply seen to it that no one will be able to play with them, at least for a few months. Hostess and Wonder Bread no longer exist, and the 18,500 people who used to work there, no longer have jobs.

CBC was in terrible financial shape to be sure. Having been through bankruptcy once before, the company owed over $3 Billion more than the cash it had on hand. Over two thirds of that figure was owed to the pensions of the three unions which worked so earnestly to destroy a company who's products were on every single grocery shelf in the nation, and were indeed included in every single school lunch packed for the prior century. Each and every time CBC had to deal with her unions, they demanded more, as more is the only applicable adjective for what unions want of their hosts. So, when productivity is rewarded with remuneration greater than the value of what is actually produced, the business dies.

In our nation we used to produce steel, aluminum, televisions, stereos, plastic, rubber, and Twinkies. Halcyon days that are long gone to us now, and will never come back, unless we allow businesses the ability to pay for labor what that labor is really worth in terms of productivity, rather than what it is worth in terms of political clout. Or, we can continue down this road until all of those who have the toys known as capital to invest leave the playground, because we refuse to learn the lesson that Aggregate Demand means nothing, and aggregate productivity means everything. Just be careful when you demonize the former owners of Hostess, not only can they not hear you, your protestations falling on deaf ears and all, those ears do not actually exist any more. You literally are screaming on about the bogey man, a fictitious monster responsible for nothing more than the nightmares of small children. What's worse, you are ignoring the very real monster in the room, who bears a striking resemblance to a man named Richard Trumka.
 

Jae A. (323)
Friday November 16, 2012, 9:02 pm
Soaking the Rich...WTF? Now that's a line of crap only a paid for Corporate idiot would come up with for a title to their artcile. They hardly pay taxes as it is..nothing percentage wise like that of the middle class, along with their accountants that find loop holes etc.,.......... and this idiot talks about 'SOAKING THE RICH"...not as funny as it is pethetic Go soak the middle class and don't worry about the debts that the rich ran up in the first place..with their Wars for Profits and endless need for tax dollars used for Corporate Welfare. .

Geez, more Teabagger Klan crazy..with a low grade tabloid hyped title, is all I see this article as being....
More attempt at dominating the care2 threads due to be sore losers..hateful one at that in my opinion but hey...if you can't have your way, do as Teabaggers Klan do...keep the crazy going until the next electon and help more GOP Rightwingers to lose elections. Perhaps it something to do with no one wanting them or their views much less support now..........
 

John W. (0)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 5:52 am
Jae, I'll even agree with you to a point, Corporations pay no taxes. Those are all passed on to the consumer, 100%. This is also part of the point. No matter how you slice it though, those 18,500 jobs are gone. You've won and the evil corporate pigs have lost. Feel good about yourself man! You taught those pigs a lesson! Unfortunately there was no one left to feel the sting of your Communist leanings except for those Middle Class members that you claim to champion. 18,500 Americans just got your Marxist Christmas gift, and my guess is they'd rather have a job with which to feed their families. Here's the even better news, it ain't just them, thanks to the multiplier effect, (something those of us who studied real economics understand,) it'll be the delivery drivers who delivered Flour, Sugar, and other supplies to them, as well as the companies that made those supplies, it'll have an impact on those stores that used to carry those products, it'll have an impact on the Hollwierdo types who created and acted in the Hostess commercials. As for your assertion that Soaking the Rich was a line of crap, you're nuts. It refers to your mind set in general, which is to soak the rich. Just to clue you in, our corporate tax rate is at the very tippy top of every industrialized nation on this planet. Even with that fact, those taxes are still magically passed on to the consumer, paid for by the poorest members of our community. The next class you take at your University should be economics, and not sociology. As for your belief that our current economic mess was created by the wealthy in this country, it is fallacy from beginning to end. Look up the Community Reinvestment Act. This little number and the amendments to it, passed by Democrats and Republican alike is the culprit, start to end. What's even worse, is that this sink whole of a law was actually strengthened by Dodd Frank, and the whole thing is going to happen again.
 

Gwynethrose F. (12)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:03 am
Back to the Twinkies...yesterday I saw panic buying...of JUNK FOOD????? And these people were selling them on ebay already??? I realize that corporations are greedy Gus's but apparently so are individuals.
 

jan b. (3)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:23 am

It could be that Twinkies and Cupcakes are off the menu of people caring about clogged arteries too.
What B S ...indicating NO companies left this country between 2000 and 2009. Corporate America and its wealthy executive class has had it good under the Bush administration. Not only has it benefited from massive tax cuts, but the Bush administration stood idle as huge numbers of American companies have set up phony headquarters in the Cayman Islands so better to avoid what little taxes they might have to pay in the U.S The IRS ought to get some more money and power to make sure that every U.S. corporation pays its fair share. That should come as welcome news to cash-strapped states.
 

jan b. (3)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:27 am
TO JOHN http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/20
The debate over Republicans’ insistence on continued tax breaks for the superrich and the corporations they run should come to a screeching halt with the report in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal headlined “Big U.S. Firms Shift Hiring Abroad.” Those tax breaks over the past decade, leaving some corporations such as General Electric to pay no taxes at all, were supposed to lead to job creation, but just the opposite has occurred. As the WSJ put it, the multinational companies “cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show.”

General Electric, which was bailed out by taxpayers and which stored so much of its profit abroad that it paid no taxes for the past two years, was forced to tighten up, but while cutting its foreign workforce by 1,000 it cut a far more severe 28,000 in the United States
 

jan b. (3)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:28 am
THAT CARTOON IS NOT FUNNY about BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ---

THIS IS WHY MEN SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED WITH WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES
Endometriosis treatments use birth control hormones (patch, pills, or ring) or anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) which may be all that you need to control pain. Birth control hormones help shrink endometrial tissue and reduce pain for most women. They are also likely to keep endometriosis from getting worse.

Some brands of oral contraceptives are also used to treat acne in certain patients. Oral contraceptives treat acne by decreasing the amounts of certain natural substances that can cause acne. Some oral contraceptives are also used to relieve the symptoms of premenstrual dysphoric disorder.
birth control hormones (patch, pills, or ring) or anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) are also used to treat Endometriosis treatments --acne-- premenstrual dysphoric disorder



 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 9:04 am
The problem is not just with unions who do drive up the cost of business it is with the overall framework of the system. Why else do manufacturers take jobs out of North America and set up shop in third world countries? Simply because of cheap labor and a myriad of other incentives to do business. Any company is in existence to make a profit and there is nothing wrong with that. True Capitalism sees profitable companies that give something back to the community in the form of programs such as supporting infrastructure etc. I can't say the same for the Corporatist Frankenstein.

Most forms of socialism don't work but neither does the nightmare called Corporatism. The sad part is that many of these third world workers subsist on slave wages and that needs to change. Two dollars a day is what they were making fifteen years ago. I would say that the COLA and prorated wages need to be increased to the present situation. The cost always gets passed on to we the consumer anyway.
Electing this party or that party will only change the results cosmetically which is why we need to hold our politicians responsible. We should be holding the Unions just as responsible.

Labor unions are 501(c)(5)s and are tax exempt.

Since when did they become a charitable or religious organization although if you attend some of the meetings it's like a religious revival. Then again political rallies are no different. Let's start taxing the wealthy unions who remind me so much of the way the old Soviet system was set up. The workers or Proletariat had lives controlled and subsidized by the State. The State provided and you were to be thankful. Were you in the upper ten percentile or the Apparatchik you lived very well.
The standing joke about the worker was you have job; no car? too bad, be thankful; so you don't drink wheat vodka, have Mercedes or have Dachau like we do; too bad - be thankful for the Party's benevolence. Pardon my bad humor here but I see these union leaders and I am so reminded of the fore mentioned example. Fall out of disfavor with the Union and see what happens.

Yes the individual regardless of status in the union pays taxes but like the big corporatists and financiers you can rest assured that the top percentile of the Unions have gotten the lion's share and have invested their money and have just as many loopholes in Delaware/Kraft to move money and avoid paying the same amount of tax the banker does. The big unions have too much power but that could change if the working man were to come to his/her sense and rebel. There is nothing so psychologically and sociologically interesting as watching neophytes; acolytes and proselytes defending their god regardless of whether it's labor, religious or political.

There are unions today that do represent people such as farm laborers who work long hours for a pittance. The problem is that a union like any corporation or political party that when it grows and gains power becomes the Big Union - a parasitical organization that doesn't have a symbiotic relation with its host and ends up killing it or makes it nonfunctional so that everyone suffers. The equation that it affects only the Employer and the Employees of the corporate entity is a misnomer and John makes a very good illustration of how the effects manifest into all levels of society and community.

I never liked Hostess products - pure sugar and other chemicals designed to addict you and adjust your brain negatively. The Union has itself to blame. Then again were we to change the financial/political operating system the wealth and responsibility to the health of the nation overall just might have a chance of succeeding. Taxing the rich is merely a band aid solution. Changing the structure by introducing changes to Delaware/Kraft; instituting Glass-Steagal and streamlining the Capital Gains act would certainly have an affect. So would putting the control of the US currency back into the hands of the US Treasury. Paying 17% on every dollar issued to foreign nationals and banking institutions reduces us to indentured servants much like England is today. They are still paying off the debt of the Rothschild loan to Prince William of Orange, the man who became king. Of course he mortgaged the country forever. Globalism, Corporatism, high union wages, government control and outsourcing have beggared the US and Canada who used to manufacture 48% of the nation's wealth. The cost of living has escalated due to high taxation; high labor costs; social programs and immigration. I'm not against helping immigrants who come here for a chance at a better life or against social programs provided they are administered with complete transparency and accountability. All these costs add up. Let's all of us pay our fair share in taxes then and in responsible programs for those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
 

Arielle S. (315)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 11:26 am
Soaking the rich? Is that what you call it? It's all the fault of the union people who make probably what? $25-30,000 a year? CEO's make approximately 380 times that of ordinary workers - do you not suppose they could afford just a little more? And companies themselves?....


1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.

5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.

10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
 

Dianna M. (13)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 12:33 pm
". . . the unions finally succeeded in killing off another American icon, Continental Baking Corporation . . . " You're so right, Cam V., shame on the unions for actually thinking they deserved a decent wage for their work! They're taking meat off the tables of hardworking CEOs. They're taking candy out of the mouths of CEOs' babies. They're taking jets out of the hangars of CEOs' private airfields!

The CEO of Hostess was only getting paid in the neighborhood of $750,000--peanuts! What depravation! While the company was filing for bankruptcy, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, bringing it up to a lousy $2.5 mil, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent.

Yes, it's obviously the union's fault. The executives are the victims here, aren't they, Cam V.?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1203151/why-unions-dont-shoulder-the-blame-for-hostesss-downfall/
 

Wayne W. (12)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 1:14 pm
Yeah right. Companies never fail because of mis-management. CEOs are never at fault for anything.

Since 1983, the number of states in which at least 10 percent of private-sector workers have union contracts has shrunk from 42 to 8. The fewer union members there are, the worse the economy gets, finally resulting in the crash of 2008. There was flat income growth during the Bush years. A thriving economy requires a workforce with enough income to support it.

Unions are THE reason an American middle-class exists. Unions gave us 40-hour work weeks, week-ends off, overtime pay, worker safety, in short, all the things that differentiate American workers from serfs. Attacks on unions are attacks on working families.
 

Joanne Dixon (35)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 1:27 pm
Hostess was doing just fine when the maximum personal income tax rate in the US was 90%, during the Eisenhower administration. And I recall from Biz School in the 70's the corporate tax rate was a flat 50%. So why is taxation suddenly an issue? Could mismangement possibly be an issue? Aw gee.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 1:38 pm
Stryker medical supplies just gave the axe to 1,170 employees. This is just the beginning folks...those who voted for Obama are losing their jobs. We've got four more years of "the rich" shedding jobs within their companies.

We have to laugh to keep from crying...
 

Rosary G. (3)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:01 pm
2 Hedge funds, Silver Point and Monarch, put Hostess out of business. It was planned long ago and executed like the "harvesting" that people like Romney are so fond of passing off as profitable "business".. Neither Obama nor the Unions had anything to do with it. The vultures bought the Hostess debt for pennies on the dollar and then tried to strangle the union and reduce them all to poverty wages and lives. It's a fine example of vulture capitalism. Welcome to the new Corporate American dream!

Oh, and this article is CRAP, care 2. It should not be here!!
 

Nyack Clancy (426)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:05 pm
No More Twinkies???? Ahhhh, I guess now when someone decides to kill gay people, they will have to blame it on something other than the sugar in Twinkies for their murderous hatred!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

"Twinkie defense" is a derisive label for an improbable legal defense. It is not a recognized legal defense in jurisprudence, but a catchall term coined by reporters during their coverage of the trial of defendant Dan White for the murders of San Francisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor George Moscone. White's defense was that he suffered diminished capacity as a result of his depression. His change in diet from healthy food to Twinkies and other sugary food was said to be a symptom of depression. Contrary to common belief, White's attorneys did not argue that the Twinkies were the cause of White's actions, but that their consumption was symptomatic of his underlying depression. White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
 

Dianna M. (13)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:05 pm
"Just the beginning," Diane O? Where have you been for the last ten years, while people were getting laid off so their jobs could be shipped overseas?

Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqHERTcytI --and pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to what Mitt Romney says about visiting that company in China.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:17 pm
The real reason is that they filed Chapter 11 because they couldn't make a profit with the union wage scales and "shop rules."

Read it and weep.

I understand why jobs have gone overseas. I've been right here....watching it happen year after year....it's directly related to the unions and they left to get lower wage labor. Add to that, the US businesses are heavily taxed in order to do business here.

Yes, indeed, I've been observing this for many years.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:18 pm
Michelle Obama must be ecstatic!! Now that should make the liberals smile. No more Twinkees.
 

Linda C. (84)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:21 pm
Janice, actually Corporations were leaving the U.S. under Clinton, as well. It is not unique to the Republicans; it has been happening and one of the biggest culprits was Clinton's NAFTA. In 1998-1999 we saw nearly the entire furniture industry move to India and China; Clinton was working hard with his Chinese buddies to help them get their manufacturing industry going; and this is information that I received in numerous trade meetings and from several Chinese members of their Trade Commission. In about 1996 we saw the aluminum industry move to Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela; more NAFTA. So, let's get this picture correct, please. This did not start with he Bush administration, and taking a lead from Obama, Bush inherited it from Bill Clinton.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:22 pm
Obama is taking our taxpayer dollars to fund drilling in Argentina and/or Brazil. What say the liberals? That's okay, right?
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:25 pm
LindaC, gotta love the liberals on Care 2. They have one constant. They are very selective in what they want to talk about. If it makes the democratic presidents look bad....they won't go near it. Thank you for posting the truth.

And who started the ball rolling with subprime mortgages? Well, that would be Jimmy Carter! And who enhanced it? Well, that would be Slick Willy, impeached for lying under oath, Clinton. Now it's Obama's turn....taking the drilling to other countries paid for ....take a bow....the taxpayers!
 

Cam V. (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 2:54 pm
I love twinkies! No need to talk to me about how this was done to break the union. I lived it actually. Worked for the same company for over thirty years and was glad I was retired when they shut it down. They just could not keep up with the union demands.

At what point do unions stop representing fairness and a good wage for the commmon man? When they get involved in the political arena that's when. Instead of taking the side of the worker they prop up politicians who will guarantee to get things for them the company is either not willing to give or simply cannot afford.

As workers WE ARE NOT ENTITLED to a share of profits in a company NO MATTER WHAT THEY MAKE. We are entitled to a fair way, good working conditions and fairness in hiring and firing practices. When unions start to think they are OWED a share of the profits then they are no better than what some like to call greedy corporations.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 3:14 pm
Unions are passe in the US. They are the very reason companies went off shore. They need to die on the vine and just go away. Once they are gone, companies will come back to the US. If I were a business owner in a production business, I'd move my production business overseas in a heartbeat. It's all about profit, the bottom line. People who own businesses are the owners for a reason....they want to make money. To hear the liberals talk, it's a sin to want to make a great deal of money. And if you are earning a great deal of money, then, by golly, the liberals expect you to share it....redistributive wealth....spread that money around to the slackards in America who rush to their mailboxes on the first of the month to get their taxpayer funded "paychecks." We still have over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse in our country. The liberals want to believe that Obama "fixed this" well, I've got news for you, Obama hasn't fixed anything but the truth about Benghazi.

Read the news this weekend? Companies are laying off employees because of Obama's healthcare, shall we call it, a TAX? Whatever you call it, it is impacting the bottom line for these companies and how must they respond? They have to lay people off. So, if you thought we had high unemployment over the previous four years, brace yourselves. Obama doesn't have a clue on how to "create" jobs but he certainly has it down pat how to lose jobs.

Aren't the liberals glad they put Obama back in office for four more years? I think they are in for a rude awakening. Obama is not smart. His ego and arrogance get in the way of his Harvard education.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 3:19 pm
What a load of crap! And, the proof is in our history. Like the author himself said, "In our nation we used to produce steel, aluminum, televisions, stereos, plastic, rubber, and Twinkies." What he neglects to tell us is, those "Halcyon days" happened while taxes on the rich were over double what they are today!
 

Cam V. (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 3:47 pm
Taxing the rich is a good talking point but in fact accomplishes very little if you do the math. It will not help the American economy and in fact may do more harm than good as it is so stagnant. There are good talking points that rev up anger and disgust and jealousy against those who have been successful in life but it is nothing more than a mere tool of propaganda. If it sounds good it must be correct ....

But then there is the straight math which always comes to a solution and never lies.
 

Dianna M. (13)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 3:54 pm
"We still have over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse in our country." And it must ALL be from the working class, right? It COULDN'T be from the likes of Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow, Charles Chesterfield . . . yes, it's ALL THE UNIONS.

And you say 'liberals' don't want to face facts! (Does the word "projection" mean anything to you?)

By the way, those names I listed? I'm sure you remember Bernie Madoff; the next two were executives at ENRON. And Charles Chesterfield is a registered securities broker dealer in Seattle who was sentenced to 40 months in prison for allegedly stealing $3 million from 150 investors just this month.

Just because I want to earn a living wage for the work I've been hired to do--that makes ME the "slackard," the "lazy," the "greedy"? What a twisted sense of priorities you have.
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:03 pm
The names you listed are small potatoes, Dianna. The stock market went into the subprime mortgage industry and who started the subprime debacle? It was Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There are rogue people in every industry.

No, if you are a working American you are not a slackard. Slackards are those who milk the system and fall well within the $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse. Reading comprehension is a marvelous tool.
 

donald Baumgartner (4)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:37 pm
PRO UNION !!!!! Twinkees NOT good for you, anyways!!!
 

Pamela C. (75)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 5:25 pm
If not being able to buy a twinkie is your argument against unions, you are a bought right-wing lunatic,ie, you are a twinkie yourself.
 

Gloria H. (88)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 7:56 pm
It has nothing to do with Obama or unions. It's about slavery and getting away with it. Slave owners unlike corporation CEOs lived on the same plantation as their slaves. Did they feel any remorse whtn they sold little children from their families, or raped the women? Nope. Why would we expect stockholders/owners of corporations to give a rat's behind for the working situations of overseas worker's health, etc. Profit is profit. No conscience needs be involved. No unions to deal with...full $team ahead!
 

Cam V. (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:39 pm
All I can say is owners 1 - slaves nothing. No job, no paycheck, no benefits.

Saying tht workers in North America are slaves to anything is a stretch methinks. One only has to look at the working conditions just over in Mexico to know we have it pretty good here.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 10:28 pm
OMG! What anti middle class crap are you willing to spread oi further denigrate them. A- holes!!!! You are the problem.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:22 am
Are you a millionaire, Cam? Or are you just working against your own best interests by drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid?
 

Anthony Hilbert (6)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 5:24 am
The company went bust because they were making '70s products which didn't sell today. Rather than modernise, they tried to hang on by screwing the workers. A lot of other US firms have done the same, which is why American wages are rapidly heading towards the same level as the Third World places they outsource to, but for once the company came up against workers with balls.

The reason the workers had the balls to fight this, even when the union that Cam blames was advising them to surrender, is that they are skilled people who can get jobs elsewhere for three times what the company were asking them to take. Or if they can't, they can get a McJob for the same base-level wage the company was proposing to pay them, but in a firm that isn't liable to fold under them any time. So win-win.

Dianne O, are you aware that most European nations, with industrial production records to equal or beat the US, have much bigger and more powerful unions? Somehow or other, it doesn't ruin us. Funny, that.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 6:05 am
Yes, I am aware of that but in no way, at any time, can the United States be compared to other countries, socialized countries. It's the apple and orange and simply won't compute. What we know is that many US companies have gone overseas for extremely low labor. Unions in the US aren't as useful as they once were in our country. That's a fact. And, by the way, unions aren't ruining the US in any way. They have taken a back seat and are generally ignored and not utilized.

The company I work for just experienced something note worthy on this thread. Our building was recently purchased by a union company. Their employees were let go, janitorial, engineers, etc, and union members were hired. Prior to this buyout, we contracted to break through a wall to add four more offices. We were given a cost to build out this space. Once the new owners were on the premises, our contract was replaced with a union cost to build out that same space. The cost had quadrupled because of the union's cost to do the same job. We cancelled the contract. We cannot bring in our local contractor. So, what will we do? We will move out of the building when our lease is up and relocate to a much larger office for less money.

This is how it works. Unfortunately, the union wages kills growth. They are passe in the US from where I sit.
 

Consuelo H. (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 6:09 am
anyone read about the ceo's pay before all this happened?
 

Arielle S. (315)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 7:42 am
"The CEO of Hostess was only getting paid in the neighborhood of $750,000--peanuts! What depravation! While the company was filing for bankruptcy, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, bringing it up to a lousy $2.5 mil, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent. " And workers making $25-30,000? Yeah, that certainly seems fair - those greedy workers anyway. Especially when the CEO was doing such a bang up wonderful job of managing the company -
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 8:59 am
WOW, Cam has now taken to lying about Twinkies. First as a Canadian you can get all of the Wonder Bread, Twinkies and all of the other Hostess products that you want to shove into your lying pie hole. GEORGE WESTON LTD. owns all of the rights to Wonder Bread/Hostess in Canada and they have no intention to stop making them. A direct quote from Lionel Ettedgui on Nov. 16, 2012, "We own the Hostess Brand in Canada. There is no impact on us." And one might add there is great financial incentive to export the junk food across the border to feed the junk food junkies in the US at least until one of the other US bakery companies buys the Hostess product rights here.
I also notice liar that some how one big fact escaped your mention. US Hostess/Wonder Bread is just another victim of a BAIN style vulture capital take over for profit. And Gee what a big surprise you and your source just seemed to manage to Conveniently forget to mention that while the bankruptcy was rumored and immediately before it became fact all of the Top Executives of Wonder/Hostess US got Massive and I do mean Massive raises. The Salary for the CEO was raised 300% from $750,000 to $2,555,000 the other raise ranged from $375,000 to $656,256 and $500,000 to $900,000. So if this company can afford to give such massive raises to the top brass monkies that do not actually produce any product, why can they not pay their workers or keep the company in business. Sounds on hell of a lot like the Brass Monkies ran the business into the dump for profit and at the end made damn sure to pay themselves very very well before thay screwed all of the employees who actually work for a living and then sold the carcass for every penny they could get after their Vultures Feast.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 9:09 am
You make a strong argument for unions, Diane. You may not mind being marginalized but sane people do. You're so foolish!

A 300% raise should piss you off but for some strange reason, it doesn't.
 

Helle H. (21)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 10:48 am
Why not take a joke for a joke. Sometimes these people are taken too seriously. Think what has happend in Denmark when a newspaper when they publicicated an illustatration of Muhammed.
 

Cam V. (417)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 11:21 am
I don't write the stories Lloyd. I just find em and post em as food for thought. 18,000 people just lost their jobs and THAT had NOTHING to do with Canada.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 11:42 am
Jason, I don't care what other people earn. What part of that don't you understand? We live in a country where we have an endless earning potential. Some people are smarter than other people and some people know how to make millions of dollars in a short amount of time. They built it and whatever they earn belongs to them.

Why do you care what other people earn? Do you feel you need to receive a portion of it? Foolish, I am not. I believe in capitalism and I have never cared what other people earn. It's none of my business and quite frankly it is none of your business to even comment on it. It's called personal income for a reason. We are all a product of the choices we've made for ourselves.
 

Lois Jordan (55)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:26 pm
Well, Diane, looks like you've finally made it plain: "I don't care what other people earn..." You just really don't care about anyone but yourself and thanks for making it clear.
CEO's lost almost everything after the stock market reopened after 9/11...remember, it was nearly 12,000 and dropped to around 6500. Dubya was in big trouble with his base, so he invaded Afghanistan with their privatized Corporate mercenary armies and gave them "No Bid Cost Plus" contracts which we American taxpayers now call the "National Debt" and are threatened ad nauseum by the rightwing to pay down...or else. Then he invaded Iraq. Meanwhile, CEO's were making their money back, and then some...while threatening workers with layoffs, furloughs, reduction of benefits....Not failing to mention how billions of these profits ended up in places like the Caymens. Taxes of the wealthiest got reduced, but the rightwing media machine wanted MORE. They always want MORE....like a whiny 2 yr. old and I'm sick to death of their wailing. We are living in a "TRICKLE UP ECONOMY" where more of the money from the middle-class is flowing upward to the already wealthy. Don't even get me started on those awful, greedy transnational corporations. Please: Goto your counting house and just count your money and be happy.
 

Cam V. (417)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:28 pm
Bush is loooong gone ..... that's all you have? Blaming Bush????
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:30 pm
Why do you care what other people earn? Do you feel you need to receive a portion of it?

When our tax dollars are mismanaged because they don't have to pay taxes at a fair rate, or they are getting corporate subsidies (our tax dollars) to go offshore manufacturers, then hell, yes, Diane. That is our money. We demand a return on it.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:53 pm
Lois, your reading comprehension is better than I thought....I absolutely do not care what other people earn. It's personal. If my neighbor earns $800,000 a year more power to him. That was the direction I was going in but then you knew that. You'll get dizzy when you spin comments. For those who don't earn a living wage we have social programs to take care of them, SSI, welfare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. My taxes go to fund these programs so again it is none of my business what other people earn.

Your tangent on George W. Bush is childish and resonates your inability to process what Obama has done to our country in four years. Some people get stuck on being ignorant of the facts.

The majority of Americans have excellent incomes, money in the bank, excellent credit and retirement savings. And, they pay a lot in taxes both state and federal. And, if there's a loophole I can find that would prevent my children from paying a 40% death tax on the money they inherit then I'll put any assets I have in a tax safe product. Why? Because that money has already been taxed. Why should the government tax it twice? I'll be waiting for your answer.

Blaming Bush is an elementary chant among the liberals. I would take his deficit back today in a heartbeat compared to Obama's....and Obama now has a second term to bring your country to her knees militarily and financially.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:56 pm
Theodore, sent you a big green star when in fact you deserved a thousand green stars. It is rare out here on the public political forum to read an intelligent opinion. Take a bow.
 

Anthony Hilbert (6)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:00 pm
" Some people are smarter than other people and some people know how to make millions of dollars in a short amount of time."
You're thinking of Bernie Madoff? Or was Enron a better example?

People with tricks to make millions in a short time are the reason the fina
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:02 pm
NO, Angelica, it is NOT your money. Corporations provide the lion's share of jobs in our country. And believe me they pay a great deal in taxes. They provide jobs for you and your children, provide healthcare benefits, 401k, life insurance, disability insurance and it says a great deal about the way you think. It tells me you simply do not understand.

It is NOT your money. 47% of Americans pay no taxes at all in our country and the rich pay the lion's share. The problem with socialist liberal thinking is that they want someone who has worked hard and paid a great deal of money educating themselves, a person who took all the risks in creating a business and moving it upward to have over 500 employees to be penalized for bringing jobs into our country. That's breathtaking.

France just raised taxes on the rich in their country to 75%. Guess what happens next? The large companies will pack up and leave and guess what they'll leave behind....people with no jobs. Is that what you want for America?

You need to get both feet on the ground.
 

Anthony Hilbert (6)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:04 pm
Woops, too quick with the send button.

As I was saying, People with tricks to make millions in a short time are the reason the financial system crashed. We need more of them like we need more CO2 in the atmosphere.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:06 pm
Anthony, no, I was thinking about a much bigger financial earner....George Soros. You know George, don't you? He backs and funds all of Obama's socialist ideas. Bernie Madoff is small potatoes next to Obama's socialist mentor. Do your research on George Soros and while you are at it maybe you'll get back to us on the biased left wing media outlets he owns and funds. Think you'll have time to do that?

People in America don't need tricks to earn a lot of money in a short amount of time. There's absolutely nothing wrong with people being rich. Immigrants have migrated to America for decades to buy into the American dream and they've been successful.

Liberals are a trip, indeed.
 

Diane O. (149)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:10 pm
Sorry, Anthony, you are wrong again. Honestly, research is a marvelous tool but it is only valuable if you actually engage in it.

Subprime loans crashed our financial system. It started with Jimmy Carter, enhanced by Bill Clinton and endorsed by Dodd and Frank. Many brokerage businesses got into the home mortgage lending business giving undeserving people 110% mortgage loans. That is what took our country down financially and I can assure you that it had nothing to do with GWB. It landed on his "watch." The democrats "affirmative action" obsession created subprime loans. They promoted, as all of you promote, that everyone should have the same amenities whether they can afford it not. Carter leaned on the banks to reduce their "lending requirements." That opened the door....and Bill Clinton took it a step further.
 

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 10:22 pm
"Jason, I don't care what other people earn. What part of that don't you understand?"

That's what makes you a republican. You just don't care. yet, here you are, at Care2. How ironic. Must be here just to spread the hate for fox, eh?

Soros! lololol. we have one rich, compassionate activist and everything is even? OMG! Fox has you so screwed in the head.
 

Arielle S. (315)
Monday November 19, 2012, 8:25 am
There are many reasons why different people might need a hand - illness, accident, maybe having to take care of someone who is sick, being a veteran home from the war - anybody can go from independent to dependent in a heartbeat. And those fortunate enough to have a home, health, security, family, love? Do they not have a moral and ethical obligation of sorts to help those who do not have all those things? I'd say that's what makes us different from animals but I've seen animals take care of each other - and they never whine about socialism or the undeserving. There are actually many people who make a lot of money and do give back - and then there are those who will never ever have enough money to satisfy them and they surely wouldn't think of helping others as any kind of obligation. They got theirs and if you don't have any, it's your own fault. Pretty sad thinking, that....
 

Angelica C. (84)
Monday November 19, 2012, 9:51 am
Arielle, I am sorry that I can't send you more than one green star a week, because I wholeheartedly agree with what you just said. Partisan politics is destroying half the country's compassion. Not all who are on welfare are welfare cheats. What happens to the person who gets, say, cancer, and can no longer work? They will need social services. Health insurance stops when you stop working, so thank God for Obama care for these people.

To all those who are angry and despondent about the election results, I hope that you can put that aside and enjoy the holidays.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 6:15 am
Diane, the one percent gets a leg up every year with corporate subsidies - that is OUR money, since they don't pay any taxes. The tax breaks that the wealthy get result in the rest of us getting reduced services (and those are not entitlements). It is OUR country and those tax cheats are getting away with not paying their fair share. They're just a bunch of fat, white parasites who want more and more from us all the time. Thank God the republicans lost, since they don't represent the majority of people in this country..
 

Diane O. (149)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 12:24 pm
Large corporations should get all the help they can get from the government for providing millions and millions of jobs to Americans. All of those millions and millions of Americans are paying state, federal and social security (and medicaid) out of every paycheck. Duh? More tax revenue coming in.....wake up liberals.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 6:55 am
Don't you mean millions and millions of jobs to the Chinese? Corporate outsourcing is the number one reason people are unemployed - by the millions. Jobs have gone to India and China. Manufacturing in this country is at the same level it was in the early 1940s, which is a significant reduction. Yet, corporate outsourcers continue to get corporate welfare. If a corporation manufactures overseas, it pays overseas taxes to the foreign country. Republican administrations of recent horror have made it possible for those corporate giants to then pay 0 in taxes here (the land where they pick up millions or billions in corporate welfare each year). Do you like having multi-nationals of American origin pay taxes to the Chinese? You must, because here you are, defending it.

Republicans call our outrage over that a desire to "soak the rich?" How utterly absurd. People in this country are really hurting because of this job loss. The government allowed this outsourcing to begin and continue at an alarming, unchecked rate. It is time that we had a president who wants that stopped - and Obama does. He has tried to stop this flow of jobs out of the country. But the GOP refuses to entertain the idea that jobs should return to America. The republican House, for example, has done nothing but refuse to pass any of the president's legislation. And republicans continue to vote for these do nothing legislators. These legislators who refuse to sign legislation that would help working Americans are the "trolls under the bridge" who prevent and hinder our progress in this country.

If this was really all about the economy to republicans, you'd think they'd want jobs to return to America. All they want is tax breaks for the rich. This proves to me that the GOP does not represent the majority of Americans anymore and has no intention of doing that, either. The GOP has tried to make enemies (and succeeded brilliantly, as the election shows) out of groups of working Americans. Postal employees, teachers, government office workers, and first responders have all been attacked by republicans who hate that working people have unions. In GOP la-la land, all unions are bad. I guess corporate CEOs should just be allowed to treat us like the Chinese workers in the Apple factories who commit suicide at an alarming rate by jumping off the factory roof.

And this is an issue that is never addressed by republicans. There is no ethical morality that trumps letting the rich have their way. No republican that I know of on care2 or anywhere else has ever stated that he or she is outraged over the treatment of these workers overseas by American corporate giants. I find that curious.

I find it curious that, while your friends and neighbors, the people in your communities suffer the loss of housing partly due to job loss, you all continue to belittle them as lazy welfare cheats. It is hateful and it is why your party lost. Americans are increasingly fed up with the GOP philosophy that has directly led to the problems we have now - a philosophy that will not entertain the idea of helping to clean up the mess it created.

Frankly, republicans should be ashamed.

 

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 9:29 am
OMG! Diane could be Hitler himself!
 

Diane O. (149)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 11:00 am
Angelica, Obama sent billions to Brazil for offshore drilling. He gave jobs to the Chinese as well as the Brazilians. He used our tax dollars to fund offshore drilling creating a lot of jobs for them.

Job loss? People suffering? Well, take your concerns to Obama not the republicans. Obama's massive $860 billion failed stimulus was sold to the American people as a job's bill. What Obama did was spend billions on green companies and every single one of them went bankrupt. He infused our tax dollars into the Chevy Volt....the new Edsel.....everything Obama has touched has turned to mud. An astute businessman Obama is not.

So, why didn't Obama create job growth for the people who lost jobs and now their homes? Ask Obama! He turned his back on our small businesses early in 2009 and opted to spend an entire year on his legacy healthcare bill. Meanwhile, small businesses where 53% of Americans have jobs started cutting back, laying people off and then came the "bad news" about a penalty if employers didn't have health insurance for their employees. You need to ask yourself why Obama did this to the middle class Americans. Nothing any of you liberals can say will negate the fact that Obama killed jobs in our country when he turned his back on the job engines in our country.

Once again....don't like what you see with your friends and neighbors who have lost jobs and are now losing their homes???? Take your question to Obama.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 7:41 am
If the stimulus hasn't worked as planned, perhaps it is because, for example, the greedheads on Wall Street refused to use the money as they were directed to but chose to give themselves bonuses instead. Or in the case of Mittens Romney, he pocketed quite a lot of it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/11q1ht/romney_has_done_a_good_job_of_concealing_until/

Check out that link. Where the stimulus money was applied as it was intended, it did the job it was supposed to do. Where there was republican interception of stimulus money, you have greedheads like Wall St. brokers, bankers, and Romneybots pocketing the money while screaming out of the other sides of their mouths that the stimulus was bad and how working Americans shouldn't be bailed out. You all made quite an argument in favor of robo-signing banks.

Also, Wall St. laid off workers by the thousands prior to the stimulus. After they got the stimulus money and they recovered their earlier financial losses, they failed to hire American workers to fill those lost jobs. They went to India instead and hired overseas. Should this have been done with stimulus money? Republicans support outsourcing, even though it is one of the number one reasons the economy is in the shape it is in now.

As I stated earlier, republicans should be ashamed. They created the mess we are in today and they prevented the recovery from being effective as well. You simply cannot stand around pointing the finger at the president when your own voting choices (the people and policies in government that you support) have contributed in a major way to the disarray.

Republicans love to s___ all over working Americans then blame them for the mess. You, for example, have tried to blame unions. We simply aren't going to take that anymore. It is not factual and it denigrates working Americans. This is why your party lost and will continue to lose.

You all also try to convince others that the number one reason we are in trouble is cadillac-driving welfare queens. But who could be surprised at that? Your own candidate referred to Russia as "The Sovet Union" during the campaign. Out of touch with reality much?

Greed, self-interest at the expense of others - these are the hallmarks of republicanism.

Also, Diane, you failed to address even one point I made in my previous post. I find that telling.
 

Angelica C. (84)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 7:57 am
Everyone, please read this link to see one example of why the stimulus failed due to republican greed and self-interest at the expense of working Americans.

http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza#
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.