Debates
17 Nov 12
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, they aren't "productively employed" if the company hires more people than they need, now are they? There is always something useful to do, and in cases of high unemployment the government can easily create jobs (either directly or through fiscal measures) to make sure useful labour is not wasted.
The government can't ensure anything if people are not productively employed.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'm sure those of the 18,500 with useful skills will find jobs soon enough.
I'm sure that's more than adequate consolation to the 18,500 people that are now unemployed. They did it to themselves; now they get 100% of nothing.
Have you considered that an incompetent mangement might not blame themselves for lack of competence? You know, Hostess was not the only company having to deal with unions. PepsiCo made a profit of $6.4 billion in 2011. Don't they have unions demanding better pay and better working conditions?
18 Nov 12
9 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThe Tea Party is against massive entitlements like the one Bush passed with the drugs for seniors legislation.
The Tea Party was not around during the Bush years.
The Tea Party is against continuing massive deficits.
The Tea Party is against massive entitlements like the one Bush passed with the drugs for seniors legislation.
I have no idea what the rest of this mindless rant is about. My question to you is, who ran up the massive deficit? It was pre-tea party Republicans you seem to have loved along with their Democrat cohorts.
So their against seniors being able to get the medications they need to stay alive. By the way I live right on the Canadian border. If I travel 2 miles across the border medications are instantly 50% less cost. But about 5 or 6 years ago Bush made it illegal to cross the border to buy medications.
So what other MASSIVE entitlements are the tea party against for seniors and the non wealthy working and poorer people of America. Please explain?? Is it heathcare when their sick?? Is it a wage large enough for them to survive ?? Is it pensions that they pay in to for when they turn 65??? Is it Social security which is doing pretty good and self funded??? what?? Is it unemployment insurance that the workers pay half for?? Is it foodstamps for the people who have been run into the ground and can't even feed their kids??? Please explain?? If you have to ask your tea party friends I guess you'll have to wait until they get home from church and their worship of God. But please explain???
As I told you before Bush and republicans going back to 1980 are the ones who ran up 80% of our deficit. If you don't think so do some fact checking because I'm not wasting my breath.
18 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KingDavid403Take a chill pill. All I'm saying is pay for what you buy. Otherwise you are stealing. Currently massive spending is eroding away the value of the dollar, so we are all paying for it like it or not.
[b]The Tea Party is against massive entitlements like the one Bush passed with the drugs for seniors legislation.
So their against seniors being able to get the medications they need to stay alive. By the way I live right on the Canadian border. If I travel 2 miles across the border medications are instantly 50% less cost. But about 5 or 6 yea our deficit. If you don't think so do some fact checking because I'm not wasting my breath.[/b]
I say there is a responsible way to give to the poor, or do you advocate borrowing as much money as you can knowing you will never pay it back so you can give to the poor?
In the end, if the US goes over the fiscal cliff they will not be in any postion to help anyone else again.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by KingDavid403Did He give a reason for that at the time, other than the obvious one of being in the pocket of the 'legal' barons.
[b]The Tea Party is against massive entitlements like the one Bush passed with the drugs for seniors legislation.
So their against seniors being able to get the medications they need to stay alive. By the way I live right on the Canadian border. If I travel 2 miles across the border medications are instantly 50% less cost. But about 5 or 6 yea ...[text shortened]... our deficit. If you don't think so do some fact checking because I'm not wasting my breath.[/b]
18 Nov 12
3 edits
Originally posted by kevcvs57No He didn't. But it was around the same time he passed his legislation "Part D prescription drug program".
Did He give a reason for that at the time, other than the obvious one of being in the pocket of the 'legal' barons.
Amazing huh? I knew many seniors and other people who got all their meds in Canada until then. It was the only way they could afford them.
But it sounds like he was taking care of his rich friends and help their business to I. All at the expense of the tax payers.
He tried to do the same with social security. Privatize it. So everyone had to gamble their money in the stock market at the chance of losing it and letting his rich friends play with it. Thank God they shut him down on that one.
18 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyAll I'm saying is pay for what you buy.
Take a chill pill. All I'm saying is pay for what you buy. Otherwise you are stealing. Currently massive spending is eroding away the value of the dollar, so we are all paying for it like it or not.
I say there is a responsible way to give to the poor, or do you advocate borrowing as much money as you can knowing you will never pay it back so you can gi ...[text shortened]... if the US goes over the fiscal cliff they will not be in any postion to help anyone else again.
Tell that to big oil. Tell that to all the corporations who get hugh goverment subsidy checks every year while still making millions and billions.
The cost of helping take care of the poor and disabled and seniors is nothing compared to the WELFARE CHECKS big oil and the rich corporations get.
Are spending problem is there and no where else. But they sure try to pit us against each other telling us otherwise. they cry "It's the poor and the working classes fault."
Give me a break.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere are plenty of very successful, very profitable companies in the U.S. that have a unionized work force. (Sasquatch, being a grand master at cherry-picking whatever data comes his way, does not acknowledge these companies.) Thus, if a company with a unionized work force goes out of business, we can not logically conclude that it is the union's fault. Indeed, if the company management blames the union for its decision to shutter its factories, we should not take the management at its word. The same goes for companies that blame the PPACA ("Obamacare''đ for worker layoffs, especially since the relevant portions of the PPACA don't go into effect until 2014.
I'm sure those of the 18,500 with useful skills will find jobs soon enough.
Have you considered that an incompetent mangement might not blame themselves for lack of competence? You know, Hostess was not the only company having to deal with unions. PepsiCo made a profit of $6.4 billion in 2011. Don't they have unions demanding better pay and better working conditions?
In the case of Hostess, if I recall correctly the problems of the company more stem from bad decisions at the top over the past decade.
19 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastI got an honorable mention!
There are plenty of very successful, very profitable companies in the U.S. that have a unionized work force. (Sasquatch, being a grand master at cherry-picking whatever data comes his way, does not acknowledge these companies.) Thus, if a company with a unionized work force goes out of business, we can not logically conclude that it is the union's fault. y the problems of the company more stem from bad decisions at the top over the past decade.
EDIT: Next I'll get published in the phone book! Then I'll be famous! Yes! Yes! Yes!
19 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI submit to you that you are not intimately familiar with the books of those companies, and I further submit that people naturally want to stay in business.
It was a revolting product.
I am nonplussed by firms taking the 'the election put me out of business' line. Obamablame? Obamalame ...
19 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I submit that these firms treat politics as business by other means, and the Obamalamentation is all part of it.
I submit to you that you are not intimately familiar with the books of those companies, and I further submit that people naturally want to stay in business.
Hedge funds (two of which owned Hostess) don't care whether the companies they own stay in business or not. It's more about pushing money around. Strip and sell, nothing to see here folks ... Romney style.
Certain firms espouse a predatory philosophy that they wish to see maintained at all costs; Obama is not (perhaps - I'm not convinced) their ideological fellow traveller. Hence the sob-story politicking.