Bimbo Ho-Hos?

The company i feel have an ulterior motive as this is the second time they have filed for chapter 11.

Having read a little further into this it turns out that a minority union is at the heart of the problem.

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union represent 30% of a workforce of 18,500. So a union of 5,550 is shutting down the jobs of the rest of the workers.
It seems that the Teamsters who are said to be one of the more militant unions had agreed to settle.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-minute-talks-striking-bakers-union-fail.html

I realize we do not know the whole story but the signals are that the union is committing suicide with these workers jobs and as i said earlier the union rep will still have a job when this is over.

 

You're wrong CatT. Unions exist to give employees a chance against companies. When you're trying to fight a pay cut from a company with a thousand executives all telling you it's going to happen, it's soul crushing.

But being a member of a union means it's not just you fighting for your life. You and your friends and co-workers, are all in the same boat. And if the company tries to bring down more pressure you can call for help from a more potent force. There's strength in numbers and unions exemplify this.

Are Unions perhaps too aggressive? Sure, but go and look at the history of them. They were formed in a time when you had to be aggressive like that. That they haven't changed is perhaps an issue, but without them, things would be a heck of a lot worse.

Programmers work 80 hour weeks. I'll bet they wouldn't if they had a union.

 

The problem is - a small minority of over-militant crooked unions, (yes, there are crooks in every position of power, including unions), get the Lion's share of the pay rises and conditions, whilst most unions can't or won't do Jack Chit for the members. It happens in Australia too, and almost every other country I've experienced, so it isn't just an American thing.
There are two ways of looking at it. You must have people batting for the little man, but also companies must have incentives to operate. The problem in both camps is found in one word - GREED.

 

@ Triaxx - I have to respectfully disagree, the usefulness of unions is no more. They have become exactly what they were setup to be against initially. Of course those in unions don’t see it this way, they think they are just getting what they are entitled to (which I can understand) but sorry but nobody is *entitled* to anyone else’s money. The owner of a company, let’s use Bill Gates for example; he started Microsoft in his garage, HE put in the money, HE put in the time, HE put in the effort and now thanks to HIS efforts he is worth billions. What many (not just unions but people in general) believe is just because he is so wealthy now; he is REQUIRED to pay you handsomely. He’s not. He is completely entitled to pay you minimum wage if he wanted to. It’s his money, his company.

I may have shared this story before but it still gets me every time. Our transit company has many different divisions, all with different unions representing them. One route’s union, who was in negotiations with the management company, balked at the management company’s request for employees to pay 4% of their healthcare (they previously paid none) and accept a 7% raise instead of the 30% they demanded. They decided at 2 am Monday morning they were going to strike. No warning, no announcement, nothing. So Monday morning rolls around and people are getting ready to go work, waiting for buses and trains and…waiting…and waiting…and waiting.. eventually, through word of mouth do people find out that they are no buses and trains and left people to scramble to find a different way to get to work or not get there at all. As if it the economy wasn’t bad enough, now people have to worry about potentially losing their jobs because they can’t get to work. Great, way to screw your fellow man!

Oh but it gets better. The strike has been going on for about a week, and people are rallying behind the management company (which was a complete change of pace from previously hating them lol) and telling them “Don’t give in! we will (and have been) managing!”.

So, it’s Monday morning again, I was waiting for the bus to get to work. I had been standing there for about an ½ hour when a woman walked by and called to me “there are no buses, people are blocking them”. So since they weren’t getting their way, many of the jerks traveled to a different division (that had NOTHING to do with their strike) and blocked yet MORE people from getting to work. What a dirty, sneaky, underhanded trick. The management company actually had to get a injunction from a judge to get the bozos to move so that people could actually get to work. The strike lasted about 3 weeks total with both sides making concessions. This was not an “injustice” that unions were created to fight, it was a disgusting display of pure selfish greed and they did not care who got hurt in the process.

This was not the first time either. So excuse me if I believe that unions hold no place in society, when all they seem to do anymore is hold people’s jobs/lives hostage if they don’t have their (sometimes selfish and unrealistic) demands met.

 

There is also the symbiotic relationship between Unions and one of the two major political parties in the US. Almost 99% of Union PAC money is spent on members of this one party, who always vote to increase Union strength to the detriment of anything else. They also make laws that insure that elections are not secret ballot for Union participation, and have tried to ban companies from moving plants to right to work States. The problems are even worse when public Unions are considered.

Private Unions must face the reality of something like a Hostess situation happening to them, which tends to moderate their demands to some extent.

Public Unions feel no such pressure, the Government can always print money or borrow it to pay them. So the one political party supports the public Unions, grants their pay and benefit increases at taxpayer expense, knowing full well that a significant portion of that money comes right back to them in the form of campaign contributions. The taxpayer is funding the system that increases their burden.

This is why FDR was absolutely against any Federal Unions, he knew that they would bankrupt the country in time. BTW, the TSA is organizing even now...

And speaking of "Fair Share", if the "Rich" were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't fund the federal Government for 2 weeks. The top 5% of wage earners already pay 45% of all Federal taxes collected in the US, while the bottom 40% of all wage earners pay no Federal taxes. The only problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend buying votes...

 

through a series of events (such as having never applied for a position), MY "pay" at hostess was cut to ZERO. somehow my soul goes on.

a company wishes to pay employees as LITTLE as humanly possible...while still offering ENOUGH to attract them. if it can accomplish this at minimum wage, so be it.

when i enter a restaurant, if the prices are outrageously high, i am free to leave. what is served by me "demanding" lower prices? let alone coordinate such efforts with other diners??

saying it's hard to find another restaurant at this time of night is no excuse. if you pay too much b/c you stuck around, that's your own fault.

if you keep working at hostess despite the pay being too low, that too is your own fault. "DINE" ELSEWHERE.

 

Again, you seem to be out of touch with the job market. It is pretty darn poor right now. You can't always just walk away and get another job. Its easy to give advice if you aren't in one of those difficult positions.

 

i am unemployed. so those ingrates at hostess were actually making MORE than me. yet they'd rather whine about the rich owners.

perhaps in addition to the hostess owners, they could protest Bill Gates, Nicki Minaj and Queen Elizabeth. 3 more wealthy people who do not pay them "enough"....

 

I found this to be an interesting read about the Hostess issue.

"The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa.

All of this was obviously intended to create more jobs for the unions' members. But the needless additional costs that these make-work rules created ended up driving the company into bankruptcy, which can cost 18,500 jobs. The union is killing the goose that laid the golden egg."

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/11/20/creators_oped

I won't say all unions are bad and all upper management are good. But, that looks like a very expensive way to do bidness right there.

 

Like I said, it all boils down to "need or greed". Workers need to have enough money and benefits to live on; employers, (of which I'm one, b.t.w.), need to make money to survive and incentive to operate.
But people get greedy. Workers and unions aren't adverse to gaining more money for less work if they can get away with it, (after all would YOU say "No thanks, I don't deserve the extra money and shorter hours")? On the other hand, some companies make tons of money, without actually contributing to society, which is just, (or even more) important as making profits. (Vis. some Govt. Depts. and charities). E.G.:- A bank that is closing branches and A.T.M.'s and sacking people just to make more profits for the Executives, whilst it does indeed make more profits for the Execs, it is not constructively contributing to society. On the other hand, a non-profit Co. Like Aust. Post, for example, runs at a loss, but produces a valuable service. (Yeah, I know at the end of the day the tax payer is paying, but it's far better than going private and the next thing you know, it cost five dollars just to post a letter).
We have, to a large extent, lost the 'protestant work ethic", (which isn't a religious thing, b.t.w.). It's now just "Screw you jack, get your ands off my sack"). Greed exists throughout all societies and through all ages and affluence levels in societies.

 

OK, I will bite.

"some companies make tons of money, without actually contributing to society,"

What is a companies requirement to 'contribute to society'? Do they not pay taxes, wages, worker's comp...

And, what is a citizen's requirement to 'contribute to society'?

What would cause a corporation to 'contribute' more than a worker would contribute?

Are these 'tons of money'ies not taxed? Heck, big oil runs on around a 10% profit...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/269...margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish

I would ask where obligatory 'contributing to society' is part of a free market economy?

Should not this 'contributing' be done at every level of the work force, so all pay into it?

 

If the company is sacking employees, simply to bolster their personal profits, then - no, they are not paying wages, worker's comp, or anything else to the unemployed rolleyes. Maybe a severance wage, if their lucky and the company hasn't claimed Bankruptcy/Insolvency.

Are they legally obliged to be ethical - of course not. But should they be? I believe so. Look I'm an employer too, but I wouldn't cut my employee's wages and sack half of them just because I can.
I guess that's the difference between people like them and people like me.

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

 

Phantom is correct.

Labor is not as fairly rewarded by comparison as it once was. Henry Ford paid a solid wage. Sam Walton and profit sharing. Sears before, just after, and through the Great Depression.

There is an ugly mentality rearing it's head, and it's name is avarice. Taking a living at the expense of another, well, that ain't "makin' a livin' ".

Edit:

I mean, the "Keating Five"?

Come on.

 

i don't think anybody's changing anybody's mind here. half of us believe in free enterprise and half of us don't. c'est la vie.

could we get back to talking about diabetes magnets with funny names?! i'm hungry!

 

It has to be said that the obscene salaries paid to executives in some companies does not engender restraint by employees when entering into pay negotiations, they see it as a red flag when they are asked to work for a minuscule percentage of the top mans salary but unfortunately that is now a fact of life in big business.
The same can be said of some union top people who are also paid a kings ransom when the members are footing the bill from their meager earnings.
Unfortunately greed and avarice by those at the top of food chain is all too prevalent.
The unions were originally there to prevent abuse by employers but they have evolved into the greed based dinosaurs they are today where "all bosses are bad all workers are good" but they forget that without companies making profits they are not able to expand and provide more jobs,
As Dyamond said Bill Gates came up with an idea, he put his own money into it and developed it to the extent that he is now one of the richest men on the planet but remember he gives gainful employment to many thousands of people but to resent his wealth is just envy.

The unions need to remember that whey there are no employees there are no unions and they need to learn to temper their demands but the same rule applies to employers to remember without employees they have no business and treat them with respect.

 

Is it the companies job to provide good paying jobs, and they should hire more people not matter what?

Or, it the market approach better? Jobs are offered as needed, and the market determines the wage.

Not trying to be argumentative, but it seems to me the corporations and the unions are both fighting for the same thing. If the execs get it, they are 'evil'. If the unions get it, it is simply the corporation 'contributing to society'.

 

You know what you reminded me of Bill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzJZTwFYKv4



Unfortunately, America and the disparity in it's society via Oligarchy looks more like a third world dictatorship, than a modern Democracy. There's a serious problem with a tree that is too top heavy for it's roots to support it, and usually it falls with a thunderous crash.

Seems there was a thunderous crash not too recently.

I so do hate the way the label "Socialism" is thrown around, especially to defame someone who is Egalitarian in nature. It ain't right, and overall I think that the United States is at it's least educated level in history. Many of us have no problem with people who are wealthy, earned it, treated their employees fairly, and gave back far more than they have taken. What many of us do have a problem with is those who create vast fortunes out of fiat currency, give back enough to say "Look what I did", and corrupt our society with their impunity.

The greater your fortune,
The greater your wealth,
The greater your debt to society.

 

It is not just a USA problem but over here in Europe it is just the same, those at the top look after their buddies.
An item in one of the English newspapers (the Belgian ones are too boring to read) The Director general (CEO in the US) of the BBC who has only been in the job for 54 days and made two monumental screw ups was forced to step down this week (any normal employee would have been sacked) and his severance package was £500.000 ($800.000)agreed by the board of a public company in just 15 minuets and of course the UK taxpayers are footing the bill so it goes to show it's great to have friends in high places.

 

"Unfortunately, America and the disparity in it's society via Oligarchy looks more like a third world dictatorship, than a modern Democracy. There's a serious problem with a tree that is too top heavy for it's roots to support it, and usually it falls with a thunderous crash.

I thought the US was a Republic?

Seems there was a thunderous crash not too recently.

I so do hate the way the label "Socialism" is thrown around, especially to defame someone who is Egalitarian in nature. What else would you call someone who wants to redistribute wealth? It ain't right, and overall I think that the United States is at it's least educated level in history. Agreed, our educational system is very poor for such a prosperous country. Many of us have no problem with people who are wealthy, earned it, treated their employees fairly, and gave back far more than they have taken. What many of us do have a problem with is those who create vast fortunes out of fiat currency, give back enough to say "Look what I did", and corrupt our society with their impunity. How do you decide how much a person can earn and keep, and how much do they have to give back to society?

The greater your fortune,
The greater your wealth,
The greater your debt to society."

Using this logic, what is the debt to society owed by people who do not earn their money, but take money from society? Shouldn't their debt be high as well?

 

In that case, society owes them a living....roflmao

Fred, what I was bitching about was unbridled greed and corruption, (on BOTH 'sides') of the fence, and you know it.
Why would I be against Capitalism when I'm a "Capitalist pig", myself, according to Commies?rolleyes

Back to the thread topic. Bill was right. The Co. obviously intended to move their operations south of the boarder, anyway. The Union concerned just took the bait like a sap, i.m.o.

 

Yes, it seems both sides lost. But I often see the unions portrayed as the 'good, hard working people', while the companies are 'evil, and greedy'.

Sorry if I am OT. I am trying to understand how this 'fair share to society' and 'too much money' works? I just don't see how this 'fair share' 'redistribution' stuff could work. I see unions vs companies are similar at times. Sometimes I wonder if unions are like lawyers who work at getting as much of the settlement from both parties in a suit!

 

OK, you've dragged me back. The ultrawealthy have PAID their debt to society in that they have provided the goods/products/services which a free people have freely bought/used/received along the way to freely making them rich. If their "cut" were too big, the resulting prices would have scared the consumer off. So they are right where they SHOULD be.

As a minimum-wage (barely!) employee, it matters to me not a whit whether Bill Gates contributes ONE DIME to charity. In fact, it offends me somewhat, as I know that dime is coming out of MY pocket eventually as one of his customers. Let me worry about my own donations, thank you.

What matters is how he has enriched the life of me and millions (billions!) of others immeasurably with MS products. Just as Mitt has enriched us by planting a Staples near my house. Just as George Soros (trying to be balanced here) has enriched us by knocking forex rates back to where they need be so that all these corporations can interact on a grander scale.

Incidentally, the "pyramid" is just about as bottom heavy as it's ever been. People like Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, even George Soros nowadays make a far lower multiple of what the little people do as they once would have. Remember when there was no "mimimum wage", us shlubs paid DIRECTLY for everything from medical expenses to how we lived after retirement, and the wealthy were building 400-room palaces?

Visit Newport, RI sometime. How many of the ultrawealthy have built anything even CLOSE to that in the last 100 years?

 

So he's not free to do what he wants with his profits? Does the grocery store where you shop contribute anything to charity and if so, do you have a problem with that? Your shoe store? Ever shop at Home Depot or Lowe's? If they help feed homeless people are you offended?

Excuse me if I read it wrong where you are coming from, but you seem to have an issue with anyone having any measure of success more than you.

 

Actually, the pyramid is not. We have a degree of disparity now rivaled only by the "Gilded Age". You should not only visit the East End of Long Island sometime where you can be shown 20k, and even 30k square foot houses on tens of acres, all built in the last 15 years, look at some of the Hollywood/rock star types houses. In some cases, like Ira Rennert, they blow away many of the Newport homes. In fact, the "Breakers" would be as close a match today, and it was only 70 rooms, at 65,000 square feet. The Rennert estate blows it away, and some estimates put it near 80,000 square feet of total living space.

 

We are a Republic by design. However, that Republic has been bought and paid for many times over by moneyed interests, their lobbyists, and anyone else who walks a part in that party. The impunity in the financial services industry alone makes one want to vomit. Profusely. Am I the only one who can taste the bile? Probably not. We've become so vilely corrupt, we look no better than a third world, banana republic dictatorship.

We have a serious problem with corruption, and scandal since deregulation began back in the '80's. Heck, look at the latest news about the SEC. We also have this Gordon Gekko, self entitlement mentality. Elizabeth Warren was correct (you didn't build that) in that this generation did not build the railroads, interstate system, most public transportation, and public works like the TVA, and the Hoover Dam. This society has a SERIOUS ego problem, and I for one am thoroughly disgusted by it. Just because you went to school, and someone else went to work, it's a crock of bull**** that the person who went to school worked thirty, sixty, or eighty times harder (pay scale ratio). Most times, it's just about how much influence your position holds, and how close you are to the Fed's fiat currency printing presses. The Fed has printed more cash in the last twenty years, than in the previous SIXTY. Hello Weimar Republic. My business is sanitation, and slinging a few TONS of trash a day, and pumping waste is not only respectable, but necessary and EXTREMELY hard work. And, if people like us didn't do it, you'd be over your head in :crap. But, your average sanitation worker pulls in between 40 - 70k a year. That's it. We could survive without Goldman-Sachs. Ask NYC how things were when the trashman was on strike.

As far as those who "take" from society, don't forget many have spent a good part of their lives paying into the system. Maybe we could create a few jobs by hiring people to ferret out welfare bums. Or, if our society were not so Plutocratic in nature, we wouldn't have welfare bums. This Republic is NOT the Egalitarian state it was founded to be. The Civil War, "borers" (first lobbyists), unlimited charter, and corporate personhood destroyed that. This country was at it's most prosperous when the top tax rate was 75%, or higher, and the "wealthy" still built estates and ate caviar.

If the euphemism in question was followed, with HONOR (something this country, and our world has LOST) by a population it would eliminate Plutocracy, and create the Egalitarian society the Founding Fathers dreamt of.

 

The greater your fortune,
The greater your wealth,
The greater your debt to society.


Remember, "debt" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money.

But, that's the first thing too many people think of...

 

They're all free to do as they please, but I am not the one on here demanding that they "must" do this and they "must" do that. Us little people have a far greater debt to society, in that we are using govt schools, govt parks, govt beaches, etc etc.; someone like Mitt is far less likely to do any of this.

If anything, I say lower his taxes and raise mine.

[Well, no, I don't say it very LOUDLY, but if I were being fair and just, I would.]

Well, you couldn't have read THAT part any more wrong -- I've posted like 10 times now saying the rich should be richer and the poor be poorer! (And I've made it quite clear I'm in the latter category.)

So no, I have no issue with anyone making as much as they humanly can. My only issue is with us trying to SLOW them DOWN -- imagine where the human condition would be at if the titans of today were unleashed to the degree the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers were?! We'd all be waterskiing on Mars!

 

So, you are not going to answer my questions?

 

"If anything, I say lower his taxes and raise mine."

You can write a check to the IRS anytime you wish. Heck, might be tax deductible, I don't know.

 

There is an old saying that sh#t flows downward. This is especially true in most corporate cultures.

If the top executives only care about themselves and not the people under them, this resentment rubs off on lower executives...than managers...then supervisors...and finally employees.

As the employees get more disgruntled, this is passed onto the consumer in the form of bad attitudes and shoddy goods and services. The consumer, in turn, gets p#ssed and eventually takes their business elsewhere.

The US airline industry is a good example: Thirty years ago, few people outside of Texas had ever even heard of Southwest Airlines. By building a corporate culture that respected everyone equally (whether a CEO or ticket agent), employees loved their jobs and passed their happiness on to travelers. Today, Southwest flies more domestic miles and passengers than any other airline and is getting ready to expand into Central and South America. They've also turned a profit in all but two quarters of their 40 year history.

Contrast this against the bonuses and union bickering at most of their competitors. Most have either gone out of business, into bankruptcy or been swallowed up by competitors. Of those that remain, AA is still in bankruptcy and their future is uncertain. The other "big three" (Delta, United and US Airways) openly admit most (if not all) of their profit comes from International routes and/or smaller airports - nether of which compete against Southwest.

 

Are you advocating a plutocracy or a banana republic?

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporate-Watch/CEO-Pay-and-the-99
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
http://creativeconflictwisdom.wordp...tion-of-ceo-pay-to-average-worker-by-country/

Thanks to unions we don't have child labor and have a 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation, minimum wage, etc. etc.

 

Businesses are using the infrastructure just as much as the *little people" do. Think of transportation of goods and services. You think that the rich don't travel (use infrastructure) ? How do you think that Mitt and family got to Disneyland a few days ago? :-D
You can always write a cheque to your government if you think you pay too little in taxes. Mitt advises foreign companies who do business in the USA in how NOT to pay any US taxes. Your cheque may just cover that eh? :-D

 

Why all the dislike of Mittens? I suspect more have made money and paid taxes due to Mittens than the current POTUS.

"Mitt advises foreign companies who do business in the USA in how NOT to pay any US taxes. Your cheque may just cover that eh?"

If it is legal, what does it matter? I am all for tax reform, but that would be going way off topic. I did find in amusing how many Democrats have off shore accounts as well as Mitt, but they were not held accountable for them. :-D

 

Just think about the money the government would save if all these foreign Co's would pay their US taxes. So, in actuality the taxpayer gets shafted since the lost revenue will add to the debt burden. Ethical.... I think not, legal, yes.

 

I agree. Lots wrong with the democrats and republicans. And lots of fraud in lots of places in the gubment. Get rid of the fraud, and rewrite the tax codes would go a long way in my opinion.

 

guess our tax rates are way too high then. funny how some banana republic can figure this out but we can't.

and no, i myself don't want to pay any MORE in taxes, good god! my point was that the economy would be oh so much better off if mine were dropped to around 20% and mitt's were dropped to around 2%.

he'd still be paying like 100 times as much as i do. i tend to doubt he used the roads 100 times more than me on the way to disneyland....

(judging from that photo in the GAS STATION, tho, i may be wrong!)

 

"guess our tax rates are way too high then. funny how some banana republic can figure this out but we can't."

Agreed. :-D

 

How do you decide how much a person can earn and keep, and how much do they have to give back to society?

That is not up to me, you, or any individual to decide. It's up to our governing body to decide. Who, incidentally are the ones who have been bought and paid for by the elite who had their tax rates slashed from 90%, to 75%, then to 35% when Donald Regan, oh, wait, his puppet Ronald Reagan took office. It doesn't take a genius to see that socioeconomic disparity in this country has skyrocketed since Reagan tripled the Federal defecit, and appointed the "mad printer" of fiat currency Alan Greenspan to head the Treasury. That man is solely the most responsible for turning this country into the Weimar styled trainwreck that now lies before us. You know why the top tax rate is so low by comparison to the previous forty years before Reagan? Ask the Congress who was bought and paid for surrogately by lobbyists, and corporate personhood.



The greater your fortune,
The greater your wealth,
The greater your debt to society."

Using this logic, what is the debt to society owed by people who do not earn their money, but take money from society? Shouldn't their debt be high as well?

What made me think of that three liner was the euphemism: "Those who have the ability, have the responsibility to act". I'm not sure who said it, but it's damned brilliant. We'd have alot less squandered ability, if our infrastructure was not in the toilet. Truth be told, the level of socioeconomic disparity, and lack of education exceeds those that triggered the American Revolution. Fact. Those who take more than they give, are just plain the problem with our society. Elaborate at your own liberty.

 

Romney's legal woes:

Courtesy of Politicus USA:

There are hardly any human beings who have not had the feeling of disappointment following the failure of one’s expectations, and in most cases a person focuses primarily on the decisions that contributed to a poor outcome as much as the outcome itself. After President Obama won a resounding victory over Willard Romney in last week’s election, there has been no dearth of analysis into what Romney’s campaign did wrong that contributed to his loss, but the prescient analysis should be what the outcome of the election means to Willard Romney. Throughout the campaign, there were questions why Willard was seeking the White House when he apparently had no real convictions other than, as Mrs. Willard stated, “it’s our turn, it’s Mitt’s time,” and arrogance aside, there had to be some reason he sought the highest office in the land, and it appears there was at least one very specific reason the public was not aware of.

It is absolutely true that Romney was looking forward to cutting his own tax liability to zero, privatizing the federal government, handing the Social Security Trust to Wall Street, and waging perpetual war, but with a plethora of investigations and allegations of corruption into his finances on the horizon, appointing a friendly Attorney General was certainly a primary reason for seeking the presidency. To date, Romney’s legal troubles include fallacious FEC and SEC disclosures, an investigation into him and his son’s connection to an $8.5 billion Ponzi scheme, and concealing over $15 million from the auto-bailout, and now his surrogate’s malfeasance and perjury in the eToys bankruptcy case.

Exactly ten days ago, this column reported on a Delaware bankruptcy court’s failure to enter an Emergency Motion into the public docket that included Bain Capital and Romney operative’s perjury and corruption in the eToys bankruptcy case. At the time it appeared the judge was protecting Romney and Bain Capital by suppressing the Motion in expectation he would win the election and have the Motion tossed out of court leading to the question; “is Romney’s main impetus for seeking the White House to appoint an Attorney General who will guarantee that all charges against him will go away?” Well now that he lost the election, it appears the allegation had merit because on November 7, the day after his crushing defeat, the Delaware bankruptcy court judge entered the motion into the public docket and scheduled a hearing for December 4, 2012; all on the same day.

It was a victory for the whistleblower and eToys investors, and incriminating for the Delaware court and Willard Romney because although the judge received the Emergency Motion on October 24th, it was withheld from the public docket until after it was clear Romney lost the election and would not be appointing an attorney general to drop the case. According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 79 says when a motion is received by the court, “The clerk must keep a record known as the civil docket, and must enter each civil action in the docket and assign consecutive file numbers, which must be noted in the docket where the first entry of the action is made.” Instead of putting the Emergency Motion into the public docket immediately when it was received, it was held up until the day after the election and gives the very believable appearance the court was waiting for election results before either acting on the Motion according to the law, or letting it languish until Romney appointed a friendly attorney general.

Assuming Romney would appoint a friend of Bain as attorney general is an entirely realistic assumption because Bain Capital’s corrupt lawyers were let off the hook when George W. Bush appointed another Bain lawyer as Delaware U.S. Attorney who refused to investigate and eventually drop the eToys case instead of prosecuting and forcing Bain to repay investors who were bilked out of their money. Now that there will finally be a hearing, the court will learn (again) that Bain Capital’s lawyers did illicitly obstruct justice and destroy evidence in the eToys case by asking (and receiving) permission to Destroy the Books & Records as well as confess to supplication of more than 14 erroneous affidavits to the Delaware federal court. It is long-overdue justice that may have went uncontested if Romney had won the election and it leads one to believe that the “shell shock” Romney’s campaign reported him experiencing may have more to do with impending judicial due process than just losing the election.

It is believable the Delaware court held up a legitimate Motion for 14 days expecting a friend of Bain Capital and Romney would head the Justice Department and dismiss the eToys case investigation, and the fact that the day after the election the judge granted a hearing certainly adds credence to the assertion. The good news, though, is that eToys investors and the whistleblower will finally have their day in court and without interference from Bain Capital’s lawyers, justice may finally prevail. However, it is bad news for Romney who told a mine owner facing a racketeering investigation that, “We get a lot of charges, this will go away,” because now that he is a regular citizen, this may not go away and he may face the same consequences as any other American. There are myriad implications stemming from Romney’s loss to President Obama last week, but for eToys investors and law-abiding citizens everywhere, the most important one may be seeing justice prevail

 

My reply is brought to you by the letter O and the number $16 trillion.

You are digging up Reagan? :confused

Slashed from 90%? Who can blame them? You want to pay 90%?

 

The greater your fortune,
The greater your wealth,
The greater your debt to society.

that's a beautiful sentiment, only you've got one teeny tiny little typo in the last line -- it supposed to say "less", right?

if i had great wealth and fortune, then i surely would have done wonders for the bulk of the people under and around me over the years.

as an average schlub with an average job, otoh, i have had limited impact myself. so my so-called "debt" is still rather high.

NEXT!

 

It's relevant, because it took thirty years of corruption, and crony capitalism to get us where we are today. Those higher top tax rates I speak of also had the tax code to go wth them, so the effective rate was not always as high as the base rate. Still, it was those rates which built the Hoover Dam, the Eisenhower Interstate System, the Tennesee Valley Authority, and even the upgrading of Niagara. You have to remember as well that the "most expensive" public works projects in U.S. history have been undertaken only in the last fifteen years. You also must take into account that we were on a measure of actual, physical wealth using the gold standard until Nixon was in office. After that, we went fiat and things rolled through the oil crisis. In 1980, M2 was calculated at 1.5 trillion (short scale). By 1995, it had risen to 3.5 trillion, and as of this writing it has skyrocketed to well over 10 TRILLION DOLLARS. Hello Weimar Republic!!!

You also have to remember that M2 doesn't count wealth held in places like Swiss Bank, the Caymans, or other off shore tax havens. If it did, conservative estimates say you can add approxmately 20 TRILLION more dollars to the total fiat currency printed in the last thirty years. The Fed and the Treasury also continue to supply rougly 80 billion new dollars a month (out of thin air, or the clear blue sky) to Wall Street every month. Talk about feeding the pig, eh?

What does all this fiat legal tender mean? The price of most everything will be overinflated, and overvalued from a bushel of corn, to the dream home you want a mortgage on. Lest we forget, that most of America hasn't really seen one cent of that fiat currency, legally tendered money. In fiscal year 2011, a full 66 PERCENT, a full 2/3 of this country grossed 50K, or less. However, our aristocracy has given themselves upwards of 400%, and even as high as 500% increases in "compensation" during the last thirty years. To be blunt, while the vast majority of the country have seen their salaries flatline, and their net worth decline like a corpse on a slab, our vaulted "elite" have in some cases quintupled their salaries, or more. 1% of this country, now holds over 40% of it's "wealth".

I'd say they owe society alot...

 

Define "doing wonders". What do you give of yourself? It ain't always about money. Sure, I put in almost two clock weeks every week between two jobs, or one during the busy season, but I still find the time to "give back". Fixing student's PCs for free, building computers out of e-waste, fixing the occasional car other than my own for someone working a crappy job(s) for demeaning pay who can barely afford the parts to get the job done, and even raising loot for charities. It's about learning to manage the time, talent, and ability you have been given effectively.

Man, I don't know how old you are but I've got almost four decades in on this planet and was raised to NEVER take more than I give. Maybe it's a lesson our aristocracy could use. Severely.

 

At 65 i suppose i am the old man here.
Over the years i have watched avarice become the norm in most employer/employee relationships where both want the most reward for the least input.
In the largest public companies the board of directors award themselves obscene salaries that are far above the input they make to a company whilst holding down the pay of the workforce so the unions use their strong arm tactics in an attempt to get pro rata pay increases but what both sides forget is there is a limit to the amount of capital available for these increases and when the money runs out the directors who knew long in advance the situation protect their severance and pension payoffs (which i believe is what happened at Hostess) and they walk away with a golden goodbye whereas the lowly worker gets unemployed for free when chapter 11 is invoked.
I reiterate that i am not anti union but i sometimes wonder if they live in a real world.
I mentioned earlier that Ford intended to close their plant in Genk Belgium so the union called a strike,when it became inevitable that the closure could not be avoided they agreed to go back to work until the closure and then when the workforce returned to the production line the union blocked the finished product from leaving the factory so when all the available parking space was full Ford had to shut down the line and lay all the workers off,the question is "how does this benefit the union membership".
I have no doubt that the upper management will be found other positions but the line-workers must fend for themselves.

This is how management has evolved from the entrepreneurs of days gone by when an employer felt a responsibility to the workforce but the unions being run by the same graduates of the system forget that the basic premise of the union is to safeguard the incomes of the members not just to inflict the maximum amount of damage and pain to the companies.

 

" 1% of this country, now holds over 40% of it's "wealth".

I'd say they owe society alot..."

I'd say they pay a lot already.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/04/in-pictures-how-much-the-top-earners-already-pay-in-taxes/

 

whoever came up with the idea that taxes should be on a percentage basis anyways? i say we all chip in $10,000 apiece and be done with it.

if they ARE going to have a sliding scale, the rate should surely go DOWN as the income increases, no? i mean, 1% of bill gates' income is a hell of a lot more than 90% of mine!

warren buffett likes to make the nonsense claim that his secretary pays "more" than him. by my calculations, she pays about $50k and he pays about $235 mill. only lewis carroll would define that as "more".

even a "flat" tax is grotesquely unfair to the rich. everything else in this world goes DOWN as you buy more/larger/in bulk; can't we make govt at least as fair as canned beans?!

 

I think buffets deal is he does not get much in the way of a salary, so his taxes are at a lower rate than if he earned it as a salary.

 

A Walmart employee earns about $8.81 per hour. Multiply that by 40 hrs. Yearly wages = $18.324,80.

You wanna ask those on minimum wage to pay $10,000.00? rolleyes How could one (family) survive on $8,324.80 for an entire year? That's crazy!!! :-D

A loaf of bread costs the same for a CEO and a minimum wage earner. Capice?

 

again, my point is that the "rate" is meaningless. he pays far FAR more than me, his secretary, or pretty much anyone on the planet. who cares what some abstract "rate" is?

when buff and i go to McD's they don't ring us up with "that'll be $3.47 for you ms. c...and $63,000 for you, mr. b...."

same thing.

-----
"diabetes magnet" was a reference to the foods themselves ATTRACTING diabetes. btw. not some new-age gizmo to "repel" it.

wuda thunk that much was crystal clear.