And now you question my faith? Tsk Tsk.

Ahh the voices in your head, a new "twist" on deflective spinning. In case you missed my softball lob....running from the facts doesn't change them.

Jesus made it very clear when he spoke to me. He also told me that President Obama was a gift to us from him. I thank God for President Obama everyday as God has instructed me to do.

Your bible quotes didn't answer the question. Where in your bible does it say the current dem run metro areas have done what the bible wanted? There are plenty of poor, uneducated, and homeless people besides the miserably run govt functions in these metro areas. Missed your quotes from the bible saying this is what your Jesus wanted.

Acts 4:32-37
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

oops. That last one was Romans 13:1-7

Mathew 25: 31-46
1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

What bible are you reading that shows your Jesus wanted the dem leadership results going on now in our nations metro areas?

"It's from the book."
*
That's right. It's from the book called the Bible. Thank you Jesus. If we would just take care of each other as instructed by the son of God, there'd be no need for government intervention. Sadly, if care for the downtrodden was left up to private organizations and individuals starving children would die in the streets. That's not a very Christian image, now is it?

I never thought Twinkies would ever warrant this many comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Inte...)

RetiredAirForce said, "...so typical of a socialist, wondering what other people do with their money."

RetiredAirForce said, "...dont forget to drop your entitlement by the squad car."

Which is worse -- wondering what someone does with their entitlement or telling someone what to do with their entitlement?

Walter so typical of a socialist, wondering what other people do with their money.

Eagle1,
What's it like to be looking down on all of us from your resting spot up there so far above the fray? We should all strive to be just like you, right? You're definitely a very "special" one.

RAF,
You just keep sniffing. I hope you're not spending your tax payer provided entitlement program dollars at your local street pharmacist.

I see this thread has evolved into an unrelated pointing match by the usual ignorant participants, enjoy your blind partisanship... fools.

Sniff sniff sniff. Go saul deciples go....dont forget to drop your entitlement by the squad car.

Entitlement reform now! Entitlement reform tomorrow! Entitlement reform forever!!!!!!

RetiredAirForce said, "Clearly the loons of the left fringe have misconceptions over what an entitlement is."

Clearly not.

DoD Financial Management Regulation Volume 12, Chapter 16

"MILITARY PERSONNEL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS

1603 ACCOUNTING POLICY FOR THE ACCRUAL AND INVESTMENT OF RETIRED MILITARY PAY

160301. Retired military pay is a pension program established for the payment of annuities or pensions to retired military personnel. As such, it fits under the broad category of entitlement programs as defined by the General Accounting Office (GAO)." [ http://comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/12/12... ]

Clearly the loons of the left fringe have misconceptions over what an entitlement is. As is the case with the saul teachings they become obsessive over something they don't have...must not be fair sniff sniff sniff

Who ever thought there would be this many comments over Twinkies, sheesh!

RAF, yes many more have signed up during President Obama's administration due to the economic collapse that originated during President W Bush's administration coupled with a rapidly aging workforce. The reason you see more people joining the rolls from 2009 to 2011 is because of the federal extension of unemployment benefits that gave many long term unemployed an income for roughly 2 years. At the beginning of those 2 years they may not have been disabled but unemployment benefits are very meager and many lost their health care insurance. Many long term unemployed have been afflicted with illnesses or other maladies that went untreated and are now causing them to be disabled. If noone predicted these events from occurring, we're in far more trouble than we know.

RetiredAirForce said, "Clearly then this metric would have been advertised when originally designed and the costs would have been correctly predicted....but it wasn't. So why not?"

Probably for the same reason military retirement pay was not correctly predicted when that entitlement program was originally designed. The annual United States military retirement program costs now exceed $100 billion. That is greater than what Russia, France, United Kingdom, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Australia, Turkey and all but one other nation besides the United States spends on their ENTIRE ANNUAL MILITARY BUDGET!

Repeat: The annual United States military retirement program costs are greater than the ENTIRE MILITARY BUDGET of all but one nation other than the United States!

"The military’s retirement system costs the federal government more than $100 billion each year—$50 billion to pay the pensions of the nation’s 2.3 million current retirees, another $20 billion put into the Pentagon’s accrual fund to pay for the cost of future retirees, and $22 billion in interest for the money borrowed to help pay for those already retired. [73] This cost is projected to grow to $217 billion per year by 2034, when the retirement program’s total liability will exceed $2.7 trillion, up from $1.3 trillion today. [74]" [ http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-conte... ]

[73] Punaro, “Tame the Pentagon’s Personnel Costs.”

[74] Defense Business Board, “Report to the Secretary of Defense: Modernizing the Military Retirement System,” (October, 2011), p. 4

A record 5.4 million workers and their dependents have signed up to collect federal disability checks since President Obama took office, according to the latest official government data, as discouraged workers increasingly give up looking for jobs and take advantage of the federal program.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/business/04201...

"In its formative years between 1956 and 1960, therefore, SSDI paid benefits only to workers who were fifty years of age or older. That meant that the linkage between applicants for disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation never took hold, since everyone agreed that older individuals made the worst candidates for rehabilitation and the state vocational rehabilitation agencies were simply unable to cope with the large numbers of people who applied for disability benefits."
*
"Supplemental Security Income, the other pillar of our modern disability system, arose as part of a discussion of welfare reform that President Richard Nixon initiated in 1969. Here, as with SSDI, historical particulars mattered. As it became clear that the President's comprehensive plan to change the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program would not pass Congress, attention shifted to the reform of what policymakers called the adult welfare categories. In particular, the notion arose that the administration of Aid to the Blind, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, and Aid to the Elderly should be federalized and run by the Social Security Administration."
*
"In thinking about the new program, policymakers envisioned that it would apply mainly to the elderly, who had traditionally dominated the adult welfare categories. Social Security officials believed that many SSI recipients would be people already receiving Social Security benefits but who found that these benefits were not enough to bring them out of poverty. At first these assumptions proved to be correct. When SSI began in 1975, blind and disabled adults and children represented only 42% of the caseload. At the same time that Congress considered SSI, however, the incidence of disability was growing at an unprecedented rate. The highest rates of growth of the SSDI rolls, for example, occurred between 1971 and 1975. Hence, circumstances favored a rise in the disability categories of SSI. Furthermore, in the same year that Congress created SSI, it also provided a 20% increase in Social Security benefits and indexed benefit levels to the rate of inflation. This action had the effect of raising replacement rates under Social Security and lessening the chance that an elderly Social Security recipient might also need to receive SSI. As a result of these two forces, adults and children who were either blind or disabled represented nearly two thirds of the SSI caseload by 1994."

"It should not be surprising that a disability system developed in the 1930's and created during the political conflicts of the 1950's and 1970's should experience strains after nearly half a century of operation. Still, the warnings of the system's founders remain relevant. Simply put, things do not always work out as planned in disability policy. Correcting the system's flaws by restricting benefits can, for example, lead to a reaction of the sort that occurred between 1981 and 1984. By the time that Congress acted in 1980 in response to rising disability rolls, the disability incidence rate was already heading down. After the administration moved to implement the new law in an aggressive manner beginning in 1981, the system nearly fell apart, as governors ordered their state disability determination offices not to cut people from the rolls and administrative law judges and the courts reversed many of the policies of the Social Security Administration. The ultimate result was that more people, rather than less, entered the rolls."
http://www.ssa.gov/history/edberkdib.htm...

"it stands to reason that 56 years after the program's inception there would be many, many more people collecting benefits than a mere 4 years into it."
-
It does? Clearly then this metric would have been advertised when originally designed and the costs would have been correctly predicted....but it wasn't. So why not?

RAF,
Abused? Really? SSDI was a 4 year old progam in 1960. It became law in July, 1956. Due to the fact that a person can become disabled at a young age and will need disability for life coupled with advances in the medical field causing people to live longer, it stands to reason that 56 years after the program's inception there would be many, many more people collecting benefits than a mere 4 years into it. Again, your predicatable lack of historical perspective rears its ugly head.

More examples of the abused safety net system.

"In 1960, some 455,000 workers were receiving disability payments. In 2011, the number was 8,600,000. In 1960, the percentage of the economically active population aged 18 to 64 years old receiving disability benefits was 0.65 percent. In 2010, it was 5.6 percent."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...

Sorry RAF, I was just assuming that Newt was still taking pot shots given his track record. Also, you might want to get your zinger quotes from someone other than Leno. I didn't hear him asking any "real" questions when the President was sitting on the couch right next to Leno during campaign season.

Walter you are indeed clueless. Newt didnt say that Leno did. Guess you really are that dense.

RAF,
You quote Newt, a failed Presidential candidate and disgraced Speaker of the House about President Obama being in trouble, and you describe the President's policies as failed. In case you didn't notice, President Obama won the last election (it wasn't even that close, called for Obama before 10:30 pm CST) and he hasn't even started his second term yet. One word comes to mind in this situation: Scoreboard.
What's interesting about the Presidential election is that it shows the true political mood of the country. House, Senate and state government elections are all rigged by extreme gerrymandering, so they're not accurate representations of the general populous in the least. President Obama truly does have a mandate to continue pushing his policy agenda. Those that counter that argument with the Republican majority in the House conveniently leave out the gerrymandering advantage and the fact that 500,000 more votes went to Dem candidates for the House on Nov. 6 yet more Repubs won. Why do you think Republicans push for voter ID, elimination of same day registration and reductions in early voting hours? They're trying to find a tool that works in their favor at the Presidential election level like gerrymandering clearly has at the lower levels as of late.

BenghaziBob,
It was "white flight" that took jobs from the inner cities and the accompanying discriminatory zoning and mortgage lending practices designed to keep lower income families from moving to the suburbs to follow the work that created much of what is called generational poverty. The US has a self inflicted culture of failure. Education is the key to fixing it no matter how challenging it may seem. Since when have Americans ever backed down to a challenge, especially when it comes to making a better future for ALL of our nation's children?

Ezoner,
It's not undeniably happening as your information remains suspect. You provide no links to your claims. Even if there were isolated cases of extremely highly paid teachers, it would certainly be the rare exception rather than the rule. Not only that, but who's to say that a teacher making $175K isn't worth every penny? You go on and on about family values but offer no solutions to the problem. Clearly you must be the moral compass for the entire nation so please enlighten us as to how we can follow your bright shining example.

RAF,
I accurately represented my own words. You just reworded what I said in a failed attempt to make it seem like you were disagreeing with me. In reality you were just saying the same thing. There's a reason they call it the social safety net. It is meant to keep people from falling through the cracks and to keep them on a sustainable path to being responsible for their own success. Now get back to work. You've got a long day of posting 4 responses for each post directed towards you. I'm sure sitting there worrying about upping your post totals can be exhausting even if all you do is cut & paste or reword others' posts and try to pass them off as your own.

In case you missed Newt on Leno... "Obama would be in trouble if journalists started asking questions"

Walter how can you quote yourself and still get it wrong?

Your original post was; "[the system] It's only meant to keep them on a path that will allow them to be responsible for their own success."

You then claimed to have said; "I said that the system is meant to make people responsible for their own success"

If you took the time to read, I did not fully agree with your REAL posted position. If you want to debate something at least have the ability to be consistant in your own positions and words...pretty lame, as I said.

"Poorest in nation: New U.S. Census Bureau data show that California's poverty rate is 23.5 percent"

Even the UK news has current data...wonder why the liberals are ignoring how their leftist policies have failed?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Fear your rhetoric has no end...

"The Golden State has reached a poverty rate that is now twice as bad as West Virginia’s and substantially worse than the rates of poverty in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas, according to a new measure of poverty developed by the federal Census Bureau."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/golden...

Unfortunately the only numbers that work for RAF are the ones that follow his narrative. Reality tells us that Republican run states have people that are poor , have poor quality of life, and get the MOST government assisstance. Facts suck when they dont work for you.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/20...

FOX BUSINESS!! Raf??

25

Texas

$49,392

$48,259

$50,043

$47,548

$43,425

24

Iowa

$49,427

$48,457

$50,169

$48,730

$45,485

23

Pennsylvania

$50,228

$48,745

$50,958

$49,889

$46,729

22

Nebraska

$50,296

$49,520

$50,713

$48,576

$47,791

21

Wisconsin

$50,395

$49,993

$52,094

$50,578

$48,874

20

North Dakota

$51,704

$51,618

$52,104

$49,907

$51,622

19

Vermont

$52,776

$52,664

$53,207

$51,731

$47,227

18

Illinois

$53,234

$53,341

$56,361

$55,062

$50,819

17

Rhode Island

$53,636

$53,966

$56,235

$54,124

$49,280

16

New York

$55,246

$54,119

$55,701

$53,568

$52,003

15

Colorado

$55,387

$54,659

$56,033

$53,514

$48,201

14

Utah

$55,869

$55,117

$56,633

$55,109

$55,179

13

Wyoming

$56,322

$55,430

$56,993

$55,212

$54,039

12

Washington

$56,835

$55,616

$57,288

$55,082

$57,363

11

Minnesota

$56,954

$56,548

$58,078

$55,591

$53,439

10

California

$57,287

$56,860

$57,989

$54,610

$52,214

9

Delaware

$58,814

$58,931

$61,021

$59,948

$53,770

8

Hawaii

$61,821

$59,290

$57,936

$54,317

$47,221 (2005)[8] PDF

7

Virginia

$61,882

$59,330

$61,233

$59,562

$55,108

6

New Hampshire

$62,647

$60,567

$63,731

$62,369

$60,489

5

Massachusetts

$62,859

$64,081

$65,401

$62,365

$56,236

4

Connecticut

$65,753

$66,953

$68,460

$64,333

$57,639

3

New Jersey

$67,458

$67,034

$68,595

$65,967

$59,972

2

Alaska

$67,825

$68,342

$70,378

$67,035

$64,169

1

Maryland

Median Household Income by State

Rank

State

2011

2009

2008

2007

2004-2006

50

Mississippi

$36,919

$36,646

$37,790

$36,338

$35,261

49

West Virginia

$38,482

$37,435

$37,989

$37,060

$37,227

48

Arkansas

$38,758

$37,823

$38,815

$38,134

$37,420

47

Kentucky

$41,141

$40,072

$41,538

$40,267

$38,466

46

Alabama

$41,415

$40,489

$42,666

$40,554

$38,473

45

Tennessee

$41,693

$41,664

$42,822

$41,567

$40,001

44

Louisiana

$41,734

$41,725

$43,614

$42,367

$40,676

43

New Mexico

$41,963

$42,322

$43,654

$43,531

$38,629

42

South Carolina

$42,367

$42,442

$44,625

$43,329

$40,822

41

Oklahoma

$43,225

$42,492

$43,733

$40,926

$37,943

40

Idaho

$43,341

$43,028

$43,508

$41,452

$40,827

39

North Carolina

$43,916

$43,674

$46,549

$44,670

$42,061

38

Montana

$44,222

$44,736

$47,778

$47,804

$44,448

37

Florida

$44,299

$44,926

$47,576

$46,253

$46,395

36

Missouri

$45,247

$45,043

$46,032

$43,424

$44,624

35

Ohio

$45,749

$45,229

$46,867

$45,114

$44,651

34

Michigan

$45,981

$45,255

$48,591

$47,950

$47,064

33

Georgia

$46,007

$45,395

$47,988

$46,597

$45,837

32

Maine

$46,033

$45,424

$47,966

$47,448

$44,806

31

Indiana

$46,438

$45,734

$46,581

$45,888

$45,040

30

Arizona

$46,709

$47,357

$49,693

$47,085

$48,126

29

Oregon

$46,816

$47,590

$50,861

$49,136

$46,841

28

South Dakota

$48,321

$47,817

$50,177

$47,451

$44,264

27

Nevada

$48,927

$47,827

$45,685

$43,753

$43,753

26

Kansas

$48,964

$48,044

$48,980

$47,292

$47,489

RAF, please provide your "source" again? I gage the success of a state by the success of her people don't you? Median income and percentage of poverty is a good jumping off point, aparantly you and your "sources" dont think so.

5. Alabama
> Median household income: $41,415
> Population: 4,802,740 (23rd highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9% (18th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 19% (7th highest)

4. Kentucky
> Median household income: $41,141
> Population: 4,369,356 (25th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.5% (13th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 19.1% (5th highest)

3. Arkansas
> Median household income: $38,758
> Population: 2,937,979 (19th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8% (tied-25th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 19.5% (4th highest

2. West Virginia
> Median household income: $38,482
> Population: 1,855,364 (14th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 8% (tied-25th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 18.6% (10th highest)

1. Mississippi
> Median household income: $36,919
> Population: 2,978,512 (20th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 10.7% (4th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 22.6% (the highest)

Read more: America’s Poorest States - 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2012/09/20/americas...

10. Oklahoma
> Median household income: $43,225
> Population: 3,791,508 (23rd lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 6.2% (8th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 17.2% (16th highest)

9. South Carolina
> Median household income: $42,367
> Population: 4,679,230 (24th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 10.3% (8th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 18.9% (9th highest)

8. New Mexico
> Median household income: $41,963
> Population: 2,082,224 (15th lowest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.4% (18th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 21.5% (2nd highest)

7. Louisiana
> Median household income: $41,734
> Population: 4,574,836 (25th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 7.3% (16th lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 20.4% (3rd highest

6. Tennessee
> Median household income: $41,693
> Population: 6,403,353 (17th highest)
> Unemployment rate: 9.2% (16th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 18.3% (12th highest)

Walter -- no -- the information comes from local newspaper (Rockford Reg Star) and local television broadcasts) where can find actual reporters instead of the Lame stream or even fox. So please do not accuse without checking. The refernece -- included examples -- of CHicago based high school teachers making in excess of $175k. Granted -- this is not the case for most in OUR general area, but Chicago is out of control. They are now seeking to divert tax revenue from rural communities to larger cities like Chicago.

My point is -- when you see this -- and it is undeniably happening -- that WE, OUR communities and schools are hurt. We are affected by the lack of family values and morals that exist in the inner cities and not amount of money will solve that.

Ezoner,
I'm sure your info on huge salaries for teachers in Chicago comes from the Conservative media bubble which is notorious for its inaccuracies. Quality teachers have drifted away from inner city schools when funding started to be cut for programs and facilities & because the attacks against teachers perpetrated by those that want to continue to cut ed funding as well as teacher salaries and benefits have ratcheted up severely. What's happening in inner city public schools is that the entire system is under attack by politicians that want to distract from all the handouts they're giving to corporations.
I agree that unstable family structures lead to difficult to teach kids. Most family breakups stem from money issues. That's why public services & assistance is so important for kids. Not only does it provide things like food, housing, clothing, medicine and education to kids, it provides desperately needed financial relief to parents which can help keep families together which is very beneficial to the potential future success of the children.

In case you missed Newt on Leno... [ http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/vide... ]

It will be interesting to watch committee assignments in the new Congress to see if the Republican party is serious about being something other than a party for old white men.

Walter -- your comments are nonsensical. Chicago teachers make rediculous salaries. They went on strike and yet are still in your own opinion are unsuccesful at teaching the kids. So you want to pay more and add more...?? The problem in Chicago is not the number of teachers, not the quality of teachers, its the American family unit -- which has been under attack for many years.

So many single parent families, no family values, no moral values... the problem is at home, not in the schools.

RetiredAirForce said, "These were designed to be safety nets not hammocks."

Any person who has been enjoying the hammock of a taxpayer-funded, government pension that further is not taxed by the state, should read "A safety-net, not a hammock" by Harold Pollack [ http://www.samefacts.com/2012/04/watchin... ] before parroting the hammock metaphor again.

RAF,
You know what's sad about you, other than the fact that you spent all that time putting together post after post after post of utter nonsense trying desperately to refute just one of my posts? You actually quoted me and then made the exact same point. I said that the system is meant to make people responsible for their own success. You countered by saying that the system gives people the opportunity to do what they want and it's up to people to be successful at it. If you want to just sit there rewording my posts just to up your total number of posts, knock yourself out.
I see that you wisely avoided tackling the subject of investing a little more heavily in low income individuals while they're young rather than spending much much more on them throughout the rest of their lives. You seem so worried about this "hammock". Have you ever been to inner city Chicago, New York, LA, Houston, Philadelphia, Baltimore? There were no jobs to be had in these places before the recession. Some parents are never going to earn more than $9 an hour at Wal-Mart or McDonalds. The best we can do for the future of the kids is make sure they have whatever they need. Inner city schools are in deplorable shape in this country. That system must be fixed. Quality teachers must be brought in. There are already programs that incentivize teaching in economically depressed areas but those programs should be expanded. The system hasn't failed. It's working to the degree that it can but more must be done. The fact that most low income kids have the same access to opportunity as middle class kids is not something to disparage. It's something to praise and then move on the next question. How do we give them even more opportunities?

fear still waiting for your comments on California being declared worse, number 1 in the nation, than Mississippi on the economic scale. Since presented with this information that trumps your often used talking point declaring a free market rep state as bad for people you have remained silent. Clearly the numbers have shown that the dem approach in large cities and states across this nation has failed economically and socially. Only the truly partisan hacks will keep their heads in the sand and claim things are just fine.

Walter lame point #5 ; "Take food stamps and subsidized housing away and what do you have? Hungry kids that don't have a warm bed to sleep in. Learning becomes very difficult for children in those situations and then they just end up as part of the system as adults. Why not spend a little more money while they're children to try to avoid spending a lot more on them for the rest of their lives?"
-
No one is declaring to take food stamps and subsidized housing away. These were designed to be safety nets not hammocks. The system needs a protection mechanism for those in need to help them out so they can get back out on their own. Not a system that allows people to subside in the programs for years and decades.

Walter lame point #4 : " They deserve every opportunity to succeed. The system's not meant to make them rich and famous. It's only meant to keep them on a path that will allow them to be responsible for their own success."
-
Every opportunity to succeed? What system are you talking about, there is no such system to guarantee success anywhere in this nation. The system isn't designed to "keep" anyone on any path. We as a free nation give everyone the opportunity to do what they want to; being successful at it is up to the individual. The class warfare game that you like to play tells people before they start they have no chance. I suggest you fix your broken approach before declaring you want others to fix theirs.

RAF has 10,777 lame comments on these blogs, maybe you should take a break and look in the mirror? Pot meet kettle.

Walter point #3 ; "Meanwhile, back in the trenches, government assistance isn't really about worrying why CEO X has so much. It's about recognizing that so many have so little. You talk about most kids not becoming professional athletes. Of course they're not but that doesn't mean they should have less access to the same nutrition, healthcare and education as middle class kids. The best way to get kids out of the lower classes and moving up is to keep them healthy, happy and educated. "
-
Now I agree with some of this. First let’s deal with your false points. Your claim that so many have so little is largely false even by government studies. It has been shown many of the poor have as many material goods as the middle class. The LARGER point you gloss over about nutrition and education is most of this is already been addressed. The teachers unions and public education system has for decades insisted they can educate students better than anyone else, are you finally suggesting they have failed? Are you finally declaring the parents who have for decades decided to remove their students from failing public schools have put their children in a better position? Before you start walking backwards over money, don't forget that most of these private schools educate students at a much lower cost per pupil than public schools. Your point on nutrition is a red herring because there is no starvation in this country but there are poor food choices being made, this across all economic boundaries.

Walter lame comment #2: "Now it's time to stop minding our own business and fix the system. With a class revolution perhaps? Sooner rather than later I hope. You wanna accuse me of inciting class warfare? Guilty as charged."
-
Saul would be proud. Of course the rest of the country is laughing, well except for the people deficating on squad cars at the same protests they like your comments too.

Walter lame comment #1; " I'd be perfectly fine with that if CEO X and his buddies weren't gaming the system at the expense of the middle class. "
-
Fact 1, all people game the system for their benefit including da unions. Fact 2 if a CEO is gaming anything it is the company/owners/share holders they work for, not the middle class. If you don't like what CEO X is doing don't buy their goods and services. If you work at a place where you don't like what CEO x is doing stop working there. Going through life complaining about CEO's, as evidence by your hundreds of comments about them, has done what for you exactly besides make you out to be a union tool?

Yes, great analysis Walter.

Bravo, Walter.

Well said WalterReuther!

RAF,
Stop worrying about how much more money CEO X has, huh? I'd be perfectly fine with that if CEO X and his buddies weren't gaming the system at the expense of the middle class. Now it's time to stop minding our own business and fix the system. With a class revolution perhaps? Sooner rather than later I hope. You wanna accuse me of inciting class warfare? Guilty as charged. Meanwhile, back in the trenches, government assistance isn't really about worrying why CEO X has so much. It's about recognizing that so many have so little. You talk about most kids not becoming professional athletes. Of course they're not but that doesn't mean they should have less access to the same nutrition, healthcare and education as middle class kids. The best way to get kids out of the lower classes and moving up is to keep them healthy, happy and educated. They deserve every opportunity to succeed. The system's not meant to make them rich and famous. It's only meant to keep them on a path that will allow them to be responsible for their own success. Take food stamps and subsidized housing away and what do you have? Hungry kids that don't have a warm bed to sleep in. Learning becomes very difficult for children in those situations and then they just end up as part of the system as adults. Why not spend a little more money while they're children to try to avoid spending a lot more on them for the rest of their lives?

"There's millions upon millions more of us than there are of them."
-
Us vs them...more of that great class warfare.

"If you'd be comfortable telling a child that they deserve less opportunities in life simply because of the parents they were born to, that's on you."
-
Get a clue walter its called life. There is no equality when it comes to outcomes, anywhere. If you are not born with athletic ability and no more than 4 foot tall you’re not going to be a professional basketball center. Being a parent is about teaching your child to be the best THEY can be. Not every person can do every job, nor do they want to. Teaching your child success is them achieving their goals and being happy is what this country was built on; not worrying that CEO X might have more than you do.

I see not problem with this safety hammock. It sounds comfy. If you'd be comfortable telling a child that they deserve less opportunities in life simply because of the parents they were born to, that's on you. As a parent, who am I to tell another parent that their kids deserve less than mine simply because they make less money than I do? Also, this wouldn't even be an issue if failed Republican economic policies that the current administration is trying to reverse didn't so negatively affect the upward mobility of the middle class. Knowing what I do of the upward trend of wealth rather than people in this country I'm damn glad to know that even when the wealthy come for my livelihood that the system will be there to catch me. What the rich don't realize is that they can try to paint government assistance as some plan to try to drag the middle class down to the same level as the poor but nobody's buying that song & dance. Clearly, the wealthiest Americans are the only one's that have prospered during the recovery. They only disparage government assistance because they now know that a strongly united front is forming among the many many millions that have realized what they are up to. There's millions upon millions more of us than there are of them.

"The single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045."

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11/-ale...

Walter, best not to look at real facts. They are in conflict with your rhetoric.

http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/11/-ale...

Walter I guess you can't grasp simple topics. The article clearly shows the middle class didn't move. The article showed how the safety net has turned into a safety hamock, resulting in those in poverty having the same material goods as the middle class...this through govt intervention and social(ist) policy not due to free market.

Meanwhile, US companies going abroad for the cheap and desperate labor pool, all so Americans can have more cheap crap.

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/...

Exactly, RAF. That's why the supply side economic policies that have been growing the income disparity gap in this country over the last few decades are so harmful. Lowering all to the same level raises no one. Redistributing wealth upward through legislation that manipulates corporate and individual tax code in favor of the wealthiest Americans while also gutting the ability of unions to protect livable wage and benefit packages is only dismantling the real engine of this economy, middle class buying power.

So in walters view making sure they have all the same material goods as the middle class is the leftest idea of expanding the middle class? Hint, lowering all to the same level raises no one.

No, RAF, the point is that poor kids are not starving. It's wonderful. In most cases, kids that come from lower income families are wanting for very little these days. That's the best way to keep these kids focused on their education and a damn good way to keep their families together as well. Well fed, clothed, housed, healthy and happy kids will likely become adults who go further in life. Again, Rector just seems to be showing why our system is working. I think helping kids avoid "material hardships" is a noble cause and there's no reason to mess with what's working.

Rich stogie smoking fat cat union big wigs forced there members into a "no" position.

You go stand on the unemployment line instead.

Estimates cost now to taxpayers 5 million unemployment and welfare.

Union greed takes 18000 workers from contributors to the government revenue to takers on unemployment and welfare and adding more to the debt.

I ask you, who is still collecting their 1%'er salary, union greed strikes once again.

Twist and spin, the poo game.

But you didn't refer to the author of John's citation, RetiredAirForce, you referred to the website in general that he cited. Not a mention of the author's name until now. So, RetiredAirForce, your newly adopted position is apparently that you trust the word of well-educated people who have written several articles, regardless of where their cited work was published; even if on Daily Kos. Imagine that.

Yeah walter starving kids was the point....clueless.

And clearly, from your post RAF, Robert Rector is pointing out one of 2 things:
A) the US social safety net is working to a degree because, at the very least, poor kids are nutritionally sound
OR
B) there is something wrong because poor kids are just as healthy as middle class kids.
*
The term "poor" hasn't been distorted. Would you rather have them going hungry to justify the use of the word in your mind?

"Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and an expert on poverty issues. He is considered one of the architects of the 1996 federal welfare reform act, and has also influenced immigration reform and abstinence education policy. Rector has written over 100 articles and research papers, and his writings include the book America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty."

"Rector received his undergraduate degree from The College of William & Mary and his masters in political science from Johns Hopkins University."

Hardly in the same league as yours and John's cited "blogger" from the daily kos, Timothy Lange (Meteor Blades). What was that about sources poo.......

RetiredAirForce said to John Eyster just days ago, "A link to the Daily Kos site John? Any serious discussion on this topic is lost if that is where you look for your information and inspiration ON Walker and what you want for ALL the voters who disagree with you and the kos." First comment at: [ http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-people... ]

Now, RetiredAirForce quotes an opinion editorial by Robert Rector. From that very same opinion editorial, "Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty and welfare, is senior research fellow in domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation." Yes, the conservative bastion, The Heritage Foundation. What was that about serious discussions and partisan sources? Oh, yes, "Any serious discussion on this topic is lost if that is where you look for your information and inspiration."

The left has played the game of class warefare to an alarming level. They have now distorted the term poverity like they have racism and sexism...

"The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ope...

Mooshoo can't answer the question either by Bowlgal. Good Point about min. wage and union greed

The left looks like they've lost the arguement once again and resorting to lame insults.
This story of Union Greed looks like it's run it's course and the left is out of gas.

More intolerance combined with ignorance from the left fringe...

Divide & Conquer: keep them organizing, claim to want increased wages, benefits and hours while really wanting more dues collected. Force the government to take care of them because your organizations really don't care. Criticize the "man" for not taking care of them while wasting money on political donations, hiring family, conferences, and outings.

Divide & Conquer: keep them from organizing, reduce wages, benefits and hours. force the government to take care of them because they're not being paid a living wage. criticize government for taking care of them.

Perhaps you might need to look up the word clueless Fear. Also kindness when speaking as an adult would be nice too.

fearandrhetoric4dummies, I don't know what you call a CEO or business owner the pays people greedy. But you don't call unions who only take from people not greedy.

Why hasn't your Lord and Savior Barack Hussain Obama raised the minimum wage then? He's raised everything else from food to gas to unemployment to welfare.

"So people that make the LEAST amount organizing for better, wages, and working conditions are the greedy ones"
-
More twisting of real life by the left. ALL PEOPLE are greedy. The reality is the union is just a guilty of greed as managment. Ignoring that hardly gets to the point. But being honest, in this or other topics, has never been what you intended.

""Unions serve no purpose now but to take from hard working Americans for no other purpose then to fund their self serving greed.""

So people that make the LEAST amount organizing for better, wages, and working conditions are the greedy ones, and the CEOs who make 100 times the wage an dont work nearly as hard are the ones being "taken" from? WOW, talk about bass ackwards. What world do you live in? If you actualy look at the stattttistics "bowlgal" you may find that quite a different reality exists. Greed is a top down disorder not a botytom up one. Unfortunately you picture those few at the top making millions as the "hard working Americans" being taken from, not the ones at the bottom of the scale making 12-18 bucks an hour with crappy Health Care and no retirement??? Again how ignorant can one be?
Ever tried working in a factory and "negotiating" you wages with a large corporation like Hostess on an individual level? Unfortunately people that think like you are precisley the reason why this nation is in a race to the bottom when it comes to blue collar wages, blaming worker greed and not corporate greed. You can tie it to the evil unions all you like, but the fact remains, how is a person making minimal living wages and little to no benefits supposed to get a higher wage iundividually? If you dontr like it there are certainly poorer people that will, and then when you are hungry and poor you will come crawling back just to feed your family, forget health care. Unless you are some wealthy heiress to a fortune Bowlgal, you have no clue about who is taking from whom, and are quite clueless I might add, as usual.

"There Driscoll outlined a "Turnaround Plan" to get the firm back on its feet. The steps included closing outmoded plants and improving the efficiency of those that remain; upgrading the company's "aging vehicle fleet" and merging its distribution warehouses for efficiency; installing software at the warehouses to allow it to track inventory; and closing unprofitable retail stores. It also proposed to restore its advertising budget and establish an R&D program to develop new products to "maintain existing customers and attract new ones."

None of these steps, Driscoll attested, required consultation with the unions. That raises the following question: You mean to tell me that as of January 2012, Hostess still hadn't gotten around to any of this?

The company had known for a decade or more that its market was changing, but had done nothing to modernize its product line or distribution system. Its trucks were breaking down. It was keeping unprofitable stores open and having trouble figuring out how to move inventory to customers and when. It had cut back advertising and marketing to the point where it was barely communicating with customers. It had gotten hundreds of millions of dollars in concessions from its unions, and spent none of it on these essential improvements."
From the article I cited. More concessions would not have saved the company because management did not follow through on their previously stated changes, after the unions gave concessions.

You're Welcome. The re-election to further downgrade America has begun. Unions serve no purpose now but to take from hard working Americans for no other purpose then to fund their self serving greed.

That is the story that has been made very clear to most Americans.

Bowlgal, the fortunate thing about your version of the Hostess story is that it ended before it began. Thanks for sparing us.

Same conversation on a 10 day old story. WOW

The unions screwed up on this one. They thought they could squeeze more and their greed cost thousands of jobs.

End of story.
They blew it.

pharm -- So your point is that the company would have survived with different management?? We dont really know. WOuld the company have survived with concessions by the Bakers union?? We dont really know. WHat we do know, is that the company was unable to proceed without the concessions and 18000+ people are out of work. What we do know is that the other major union conceeded and agreed that it was in the best interest of members and employees to agree.

What we do know, is that the company provided supporting documentation and budegts and balance sheets, income statements etc,,,, showing that without the union concessions, that the were unable to continue operations. So Pharm -- you want to ignore the facts that are known. All other outcomes are purely a guess at best. In retrospect -- you can always say that management, unions, employees could have done more.

But you can certainly say that because the union did not conceed, that 18000 people are out of work today. Would it have just been a delay for a future closure --- we will never really know.

WOW! I guess there is a reason that my position is Sales and Marketing instead of Accounting.
It appears that a birdseye view of how a business works is not enough to comment on the numbers. I must "learn how to read an income statement before you post". (MooShoo)
Therefore I will leave the numbers discussion to those "with an IQ far greater than yours" (Fearandrhetoric4dummies) and move on.
I'm sure this battle of wits will continue elswhere.
Here we go....

"Hostess management's efforts to blame union intransigence for the company's collapse persisted right through to the Thanksgiving eve press release announcing Hostess' liquidation, when it cited a nationwide strike by bakery workers that "crippled its operations."

That overlooks the years of union givebacks and management bad faith. Example: Just before declaring bankruptcy for the second time in eight years Jan. 11, Hostess trebled the compensation of then-Chief Executive Brian Driscoll and raised other executives' pay up to twofold. At the same time, the company was demanding lower wages from workers and stiffing employee pension funds of $8 million a month in payment obligations.

Hostess management hasn't been able entirely to erase the paper trail pointing to its own derelictions. Consider a 163-page affidavit filed as part of the second bankruptcy petition."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hi...
Crippled by management.

Hostess would have failed regardless. After exiting the last bankruptcy they reduced their workforce by 10,000 people, closed hundreds of outlet stores and nearly 60 bakeries. All this jibber jabber about whether or not it's all the union's fault is absurd. They all share in the blame, but the ultimate blame lies with management who could't run a successful or profitable business, and who's plan to exit the latest bankruptcy was seen as a failure before it even happened.
When was the last time you bought a Hostess product? I haven't in 20 years. Union's asking for a livable wage is hardly a small thing.
The downward pressure that capitalism itself applies to wages is completely evident in the declining earning power of American's, especially since especially since the record unemployment we experienced since 2008.
Of course we get the constant Republican mantra of "union's are evil" here, without any acknowledgement that the large scale failure of American business can be set squarely on the shoulders of YOU, the American, who can't wait to stand in line to fill their carts full of Chinese goods this glorious holiday season, comrades.

POOBAH - As the appointed Ref between you and my pal 91.6 - You are correct in what you are saying. I think 916 has been hit by many many ZINGERS in the forum - You have damaged him beyond repair.

916WI said, "Out of that original comment you surmised that I was perpetrating "one of the distinguishing principles of communism""

I clearly stated that, "In effect, the only way "all" could share in corporate profits is if "all" own an equal share of the corporation. That would require state ownership of the means of production -- one of the distinguishing principles of communism." I was offering a principle of communism and did not surmise or state you were perpetrating anything.

916WI said, "...you seriously think that you aren't labeling me as a communist?"

Yes, I know I did not label you as a communist. And that's why we see this tortuous and convoluted journey you've taken us on instead of a simple, straightforward quote to support your accusation.

MooShoo is correct. Wages, profit sharing and bonuses are business expenses. Expenses reduce profit and clearly are not profit.

Poohboy.....Let's do this the easy way.......

Here is the comment that I made that you quoted,
"These people would obviously benefit from the investment and the risk that the company owners make and take....."'

Here is the comment you made based on that comment,
"and the comments in response by 916WI and Ezoner about "all" benefiting from private ownership of corporations. In effect, the only way "all" could share in corporate profits is if "all" own an equal share of the corporation. That would require state ownership of the means of production -- one of the distinguishing principles of communism."

Really........Out of that original comment you surmised that I was perpetrating "one of the distinguishing principles of communism".....Seriously??
In your eyes, even after you somehow twisted my initial comment to read in a way that according to you made me promote "one of the distinguishing principles of communism" you seriously think that you aren't labeling me as a communist? The lies just keep getting more and more tangled with you.......Wow! Regardless, have a nice day!

Third_Eye, simplicity isn't to blame for your attempt to explain your 10%, 4-6% comment, but rather an almost total misunderstanding of basic business accounting principles.

"None of the "profit" goes to pay employees. Obviously you do not know the difference between a direct labor expense and profit."

Sure it does.....Though profit sharing and bonus programs these amounts show up in the "wages" field on an employees W2. Our company has a bonus program where a percentage of the company's yearly profit is broken out and distributed among the employees in the first quarter. It is definitely considered by both the company and the IRS as taxable income.......

916WI said, "So what you're saying is that any person who believes that an employee of a company benefits from the investment of the owner of said company is a communist. Is this correct?"

No, that is not correct and I did not say that. If I had said that you should quote me directly instead of quoting what you said that I was responding to. Novel idea, isn't it?

916WI said, "As I asked before, where did I even suggest "all"(your word) would benefit? Where did I suggest that "all"(your word again) would share in corporate profits?"

Now it's gone from that I, "specifically attributed a comment" to you to that I may have suggested you said the word "all." Are you serious? I've already documented for you the comments I attributed to you.

916WI said, "I will be ready to accept your apology for labeling me as a communist whenever you are ready."

Don't hold your breath. Some people feel entitled to everything, even apologies. I didn't label you a communist and I won't apologize for something I didn't do.

Rich stogie smoking fat cat union big wigs forced there members into a "no" position.

You go stand on the unemployment line instead.

Estimates cost now to taxpayers 5 million unemployment and welfare.

Union greed takes 18000 workers from contributors to the government revenue to takers on unemployment and welfare and adding more to the debt.

I ask you, who is still collecting their 1%'er salary, union greed strikes once again.

Fear and Poobah. I am not going to dive into the minutia of numbers in your attempt to deflect my point. I tried to use simplicity to illustrate the point that the ownership of a company is rarely one man, but rather a larger group of investors that each divide up a small percentage of the income generated by the company they own.
All you are doing is deflecting discussion from my broader point, posted earlier but I repeat.
"Much of the profit goes to pay the employees. In a publicly traded company some of the owners (stockholders) are also employees.
Much time and effort goes into making sure that the employees they pay are happy with their job, thus more productive.
The left prefers the spector of an evil capitalist paying slave wages to an unhappy workforce. How about ONE example of this."
.
fearandrhetoric4dummies Nov 25, 2012 at 12:36 a.m. A fine example of the civil discourse the left insists on. From Merriam-Wbster dictionary. Condescending: showing or characterized by a patronizing or superior attitude toward others.
From Fear at date and time cited above, Quote"...insulting someone with an IQ far greater than yours might not be such a good idea? Just a suggestion." End quote

Poohboy...In response to the rest of your post, the comments you made were racist. I was not the only one who pointed this out to you. The only reason my comments were removed was because of a "creative" spelling of your name. Once again, convenient how you "accidently" left another fact out of one of your posts. The reason that my comments were removed is simply because you seem to be one of those who love to use the "suggest removal" link. I know that you will deny this but my previous post already outlines the fact that you have difficulty telling the truth. I preferred not to use that link and tattle on you when you posted your comments, as I wanted people to see how off putting you really are........I will be ready to accept your apology for labeling me as a communist whenever you are ready......Thanks.

Poohboy......

Attack your character?? That's classic! This coming from someone who offers a weak attempt to use the comment, "These people(referencing labor hired by the companies in the preceding sentence I wrote) would obviously benefit from the investment and the risk that the company owners make and take....." to label the person who made that comment as a communist? So what you're saying is that any person who believes that an employee of a company benefits from the investment of the owner of said company is a communist. Is this correct?
------------
Here is your comment that I am referencing
"and the comments in response by 916WI and Ezoner about "all" benefiting from private ownership of corporations. In effect, the only way "all" could share in corporate profits is if "all" own an equal share of the corporation. That would require state ownership of the means of production -- one of the distinguishing principles of communism."

As I asked before, where did I even suggest "all"(your word) would benefit? Where did I suggest that "all"(your word again) would share in corporate profits?
My questions are very specific, if your "character" was really that important to you, you would surely have a reasonable response to my accusation that you're clearly a liar......no?

"Ripplewood, which was founded by Timothy C. Collins, a major Democratic donor, is expected to lose most, if not all, of the $130 million or so it invested in Hostess. The company’s lenders, led by Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital, are not expected to fare well either. The behind-the-scenes tale of Hostess and Ripplewood may be the opposite of a project to buy it, strip it and flip it. When Mr. Collins originally looked at Hostess, he was trying to make investments in troubled companies with union workers. He was convinced that he could work with labor organizations to turn around iconic American businesses, and he hoped Hostess would become a model for similar deals."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/p...

I think it'd be best not to lecture Poobah on education. Looking at many of the posters that do so Poobah really seems to make you look silly in the end. So Third, if you want to debate, do it, but being a condescending .......person and insulting someone with an IQ far greater than yours might not be such a good idea? Just a suggestion.

CLearly 916, only the left can declare a term racist and only then when the offending term is used by those they disagree with. Just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do crowd.

Third_Eye said, "Return on total sales commonly known as gross profit. Net profit is after the expenses and taxes are paid."

It's appalling to read the comments of people that think they understand the most basic of business accounting principles and have obviously never run a successful business in their lives. Return on total sales has NEVER been commonly known as gross profit. Gross profit is not a ratio, for Pete's sake. Gross profit is net sales minus the cost of goods sold. Net profit is gross profit minus operating expenses, taxes and interest payments.

And, of course, dividends are a balance sheet item, not on the P&L report, and have no effect on your profit. So you still haven't answered what this 10%, 4-6% figures are and where you got the data from.

A "larger education?" You should focus on the quality of your education, not the size of it.

Poobah: Return on total sales commonly known as gross profit. Net profit is after the expenses and taxes are paid. What is left after expenses and taxes is what I am referring to, sometimes known as net net.
For a larger education go to motleyfool.com

Third_Eye said, "Let's look at reality. If the owners of a corporation get 10% that's huge. In most competitive industries it's more like 4-6%."

Are you talking about salary, benefits, dividends, capital gains from stock sales? Where did you get your data for these numbers? 10%, 4-6% return on what?

Profits may not be the reason that corporations exist but it is the primary motivating factor. Comments on this thread imply that the owners and managers run off with a big share of the profit.
Let's look at reality. If the owners of a corporation get 10% that's huge. In most competitive industries it's more like 4-6%. Instead of working long hours, sweating out major events, and managing people, a rich person can get 4-6% in the stock market.
Much of the profit goes to pay the employees. In a publicly traded company some of the owners (stockholders) are also employees.
Much time and effort goes into making sure that the employees they pay are happy with their job, thus more productive.
The left prefers the spector of an evil capitalist paying slave wages to an unhappy workforce. How about ONE example of this.

916WI, I'm not going to sit by and let you attack my character without responding.

916WI said, "You specifically attributed a comment to me."

I have specifically attributed many comments to you over the years, all of which you made. Much like I just attributed the above quote to you.

In addition to the quote shown above, the following are the two specific comments I attributed to you in this thread.

1) On November 23, 2012 at 7:32 p.m. I quoted your November 23, 2012 at 6:24 p.m. comment by saying: '916WI said, "For the second time, please reply to the following post..."'

2) On November 23, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. I quoted your November 23, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. post by saying: '916WI, "These people would obviously benefit from the investment and the risk that the company owners make and take....."'

Regarding your comment that I had previously made "disgustingly racist posts." You may recall that another poster mentioned they had specifically asked the Gazette staff to remove my comment, which was clearly not racist, and the comment stands until this day. May 22, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. [ http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/latest-ne... ]

In fact, the only comments removed on that thread were those who joined you in attacking me and calling the comment racist and had their own remarks removed. Similar to your five remarks that were removed in which you targeted me prior to that remark. In case you forgot those remarks, this may refresh your memory:

1) On Founders, CEOs hand Wis. governor campaign cash

Posted on May 2 at 3:29 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

2) On Are WE THE PEOPLE of WI for sale?

Posted on May 2 at 1:28 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

3) On Founders, CEOs hand Wis. governor campaign cash

Posted on May 2 at 1:19 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

4) On Are WE THE PEOPLE of WI for sale?

Posted on May 2 at 9:01 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

5) On Are WE THE PEOPLE of WI for sale?

Posted on May 2 at 7:18 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"Thinking that your employer and anyone that is successful si trying to destroy you..."

Nope. Never said anything even remotely close to that. When you have to make stuff up like that to prove your point, have you really made a point at all?

There seems to be an implication in many posts that non-union workplaces are substandard workplaces. Such is not the case. Many times union agreements restrict flexibilty. An example that has been pointed out is the people that loaded bread could not load cakes and vice versa. A rule like this does not reflect the reality of day to day demands, but was agreed on by management.
From what I have learned about Hostess they are lucky to have lasted this long. Mis management seemed to be the norm.
One of the things that they could have done is set aside money to weather the bakers strike. If a strike takes away their Twinkies the public begins to side with the company. I think however things were too far gone by the time the bakers went on strike, which proved to be the death knell for Hostess.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

RAF -- Dont forget the deflect and deny. They cant even read their own words. They lie, deny, deflect , blame and then want it all supplied by others.

A nice point of view from the intolerant left; "if you were me, I would probably off myself."

Ezoner,
I would surely hate it if you were me, too. In fact, if you were me, I would probably off myself.
p.s. I neither said nor implied any of the things you tried to attribute to me in that post.

916WI said, "For the second time, please reply to the following post..."

My, my... some people feel awfully entitled to their demands. I guess there was something to that 47% thing...

whz_bng said, "Where did I blame Obama for the current unemployment?"

Is this a guessing game now, whz_bng, or do you want to re-read my comment that was addressed to The Entitled One and not you? Re-read it and you'll hopefully understand that.

Here we go again poohboy......I ask you again as you clearly attributed a statement to me that I did not make.....
For the second time, please reply to the following post
---------------------
While we're at it please reference where I said, ""all" benefiting from private ownership of corporations" and "all could share in corporate profits". I read what I wrote, and don't see either of those statements in my post......

Poo, with your entitlement mindset it would be hard to answer such an obvious question. when there are more workers than there are jobs wages will be stagnant.Hostess saw a dwindling demand for their calorie laden products as their workers demanded more consessions from them. The middle class will dwindle. Where did I blame Obama for the current unemployment? Maybe I should blame him as 4 yrs of failed economic policy has gotten us nowhere. I hope he can correct it soon.

Walter -- I would surely hate to be you. Thinking that your employer and anyone that is successful si trying to destroy you.... The reality is NO comapny , NO employer is succesful unless they provide adeqaute compensation. However, when pay out paces the cost of labor, transporation and import duties and fees then it becomes more economical to chnage manufacturing location for ALL of those reasons. When markets are saturated or growth slows as emerging economies grow, it makes more sense in some cases, to manufacture locally.

Unions are not all the same -- just as employers are not all the same. Some private unions recognise the pressures of competition, some do not. Public unions should be illegal, based upon the governmental co-dependencies. The entire process is corrupted. So while in your eyes its always someone out to damage or get you... you have the choice of using the free market that you want to eleiminate, to make a change. Some choose a less risky route , but want the same compensation. The equation is not nearly as simple, nor are the problems and solutions. But I do not see the solution as a socialistic economy and government,

916WI, it seems amazing that a person would be more concerned with having misunderstood the context of the word "all" than with having failed to recognize their latent propensity for communism.

whzbng,
You said:
"The rich will always stay rich and the middle class will be lowered inch by inch without some union bending."
As Hostess came out of bankruptcy the first time thousands of union employees were laid off. Those lucky enough to have kept their jobs took a significant cut to their pay and pensions. They did this voluntarily because they were told they could help keep the company running. In reality the PE firm that was running the company needed the employee consession so the company would look like it was doing better so the PE managers could borrow millions more to pay themselves huge bonuses and leave the debt tied to the company. The union did bend based on what the management requested under false pretenses.
Also, your theory that the middle class will dwindle away because of inflexible unions is ridiculous. The middle class will dwindle because of the greed of the very rich. Only 11.8% of the US workforce is represented by unions. The reason the middle class isn't doing as well is because that percentage has decreasd rapidly since the 1950s. The overall economy is helped greatly by strong middle class spending power. The very rich have made it clear that they are not concerned with the health of the overall economy in the US. They are much more worried about increasing their already vast wealth. The rest of us be damned. Times sure have changed. Coming out of WWII we were a country united. Solidarity was the norm. Slowly but surely we've been divided and conquered. Is it any wonder so many have resigned themselves to living on the meager rations of government assistance?

Poohboy......I realize that basic comprehension is something you struggle with. Companies exist to make their owners/shareholders money. A by-product of that being the necessity of hiring labor to facilitate that objective. I would attach pictures to better illustrate this for you, but this site doesn't allow that.....sorry:(
While we're at it please reference where I said, ""all" benefiting from private ownership of corporations" and "all could share in corporate profits". I read what I wrote, and don't see either of those statements in my post......

whz_bng said, "Under capitalism all make money when there is demand."

No they don't. The Hostess workers, or shall we say former Hostess workers, aren't making money and there is a demand for Hostess products. And I'm part of the "all" and I haven't made any money from the demand for Hostess products.

If you haven't caught on by now, I'm taking you to task over your statement that, "Corporations exist to make profits, not to employee people and lose money," and the comments in response by 916WI and Ezoner about "all" benefiting from private ownership of corporations. In effect, the only way "all" could share in corporate profits is if "all" own an equal share of the corporation. That would require state ownership of the means of production -- one of the distinguishing principles of communism.

Before you jump to call me a communist, know that I do not support state ownership of the means of production as you, 916WI and Ezoner apparently do with your desire that "all" would benefit.

916WI, "These people would obviously benefit from the investment and the risk that the company owners make and take....."

whz_bng said corporations do not exist to employ people. So who are "these people" you mention? The benefit isn't so obvious to those without employment, is it? Yeah, the unemployed, that group of people you've been blaming Obama for over the last four years. Well, if corporations do not exist to employ people, then you're telling us that government does exist to employ people? If not, why are you blaming Obama for unemployment?

Poo -- there are many ways -- the fact that you refuse to acknowledge them is part of YOUR problem.

poo, when there is a demand for a product workers are hired and receive paychecks. Why would a company that ceases to make money keep employees and lose more money? Under capitalism all make money when there is demand. Those that put their own money on the line to start a company do so in hopes of being successful and making more money. If a worker feels he is not being paid enough,quit, go find another job or develop a company of your own.

"That's an interesting observation. How, then, does capitalism benefit anyone other than owners of corporations?"
--------
Stupid question--Obviously management can not do it all. Whether it's a manufacturing or service environment, labor will have to be hired to make the vision of those that direct the company a reality. These people would obviously benefit from the investment and the risk that the company owners make and take.....

whz_bng said, "Corporations exist to make profits, not to employee people and lose money."

That's an interesting observation. How, then, does capitalism benefit anyone other than owners of corporations?

Essentially socialism brings the working class down to the same level of poverty. Once everyone has their govt assigned jobs, housing, and food rations you become serfs of the system, much like the slow movement of govt entitlements today. Mr Hurt, the prez of the bakers union still has his $262,654 a yr job and 100% pension funded by the union members. Two of his children who work for him in some capacity in the union office still have their $79,000 a yr jobs. He misled the Hostess employees into thinking a savior was waiting in the wings and put 18,000 workers on the unemployment line. The rich will always stay rich and the middle class will be lowered inch by inch without some union bending. Corporations exist to make profits, not to employee people and lose money.

"so their only means of "work" is to eliminate..."

Spoken like a true socialist. Walter you might want to read more about your union ideas and ideals from this website, http://socialistparty-usa.net/

Here is a tiny snip-it for you:
Statement of Agreement: "The following points represent the key ideas of agreement of the Socialist Party USA." "The Socialist Party is a democratic socialist organization. We see socialism as a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes and school and the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not the private profit of a few. We see the working class as in a key and central position to fight back against the ruling class and its power. The working class is the major force worldwide that can lead the way to a socialist future – to a real radical democracy from below."

fear&rhetoric,
You're on to it but it's already so much further along than you think. The very rich treat our country and economy like any other business venture because, being at the top of the food chain as they are, they are afforded the luxury of running the whole thing. They're in no danger of losing their fortunes, so their only means of "work" is to eliminate any "competition". So what do they do, use their enormous wealth to buy the government through lobbying and huge donations so that they can control regulation and tax legislation. What they've done is make it easier for themselves to grow their already vast fortunes while at the same time made it more difficult for middle and lower classes to make a better life for themselves. Just think about the dystopian science fiction stories from the past decades where average joes are turned into drone workers with barcodes tatooed on the back of the necks so they could be tracked and controlled. You think that doesn't already happen? How is our value as citizens measured in this country? By how much we can purchase as consumers, right? Well, how is that measured? That's right. That little 3 digit number, your credit score. The better you are at loading yourself with debt, the more valuable you are to the system. As a society, we have willingly entered into a system where we are defined by how good we are at being in someone else's pocket. A higher credit score means you are more willing to be tracked and under the control of your creditors. When you act like a good little automaton by paying your bills while taking on new debt who are you sending your money up the chain to? That's right, the few hundred extremely rich people who have nothing better to do than to see how much control over how many people they can attain.

"I quite enjoy how RAF and others blame poor/middle class folks"
-
More rhetoric and false accusations from the left fringe.

Communism? More labels Robot Lord of Tokyo? Please spare me the incompetant arguments and labeling. The so-called free market has become one of push a smaller class up and a larger class down, period. Its called statistics CHIEF try and look at them. The economy is better when MORE people are prosperous, not fewer. Maybe you should read a little bit about the stunts that Hostess is trying to pull when dealing with "bankruptcy" nuumber three. Shell games with performance bonuses and salaries..... I quite enjoy how RAF and others blame poor/middle class folks, call THEM greedy and then when shown STATISTICS, NUMBERS its deflect, deflect, ignore, label.....
all these people want to do anymore is label anyone who brings any argument to the table that their marching orders disagree with. This "free-market" that they worship in front of Jesus and anything is creating a permanent underclass in America. Its NOT liberals, its not even conservatives, its these people that worship money and grade freedom based on the amount of money you have. I grow tired of capitalists tying the ability to screw their workers to freedom. We are heading towards an environment like China. Remember people like Chief 2 short of a twelve pack and RAF are also the type of people that believe that there are no place for Child labor laws as well, eliminate minimum wage, etc.... Where does anyone think that will take the economy?

Chief has been drinking those 10 beers again. Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox and you're calling it a liberal rag? Have you ever actually read the WSJ?

Green Bay Press-Gazette is owned by Gannett, a notoriously right wing media brand.

Settle down Chief...Have a twinkie.

I love the smell of vulture capitalism in the morning.

More help for the libs, msndnc/msnbiasc put together some talking points for them to echo...

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/21/awww-snap...

fearandrhetoric4dummies: You hit it on the nail!

In a free market you don't have to purchase their product. Then you won't contribute to the "evil" salary you are worried about.

Far right wing lunatics will ONLY be happy when the free market allows 2 classes of people, the unbelievabley over compensated executives, and the unbelievabbly undercompensated line workers. This is not about free markets, its about one side getting a HUGE boost in salary , and the other side makes 8 bucks an hour and has no health care. THAT is what they want, not a free market, a manipulated one.

Get a grip fear monker, I never stated the company wasn't run by fools. But the left wing diatribe that the unions are victims in these games is hardly accurate. The fact this bakers union required over 370 work rules including restricting people who load bread on trucks couldn't also load cake flies in the face of wanting the company to be a successful place were workers and management will survive together. This disaster was created by people on both sides of the table not one side.

Something smell funny?

Wall Street Journal

BY RACHEL FEINTZEIG

Creditors of Hostess Brands Inc. said in court papers the company may have "manipulated" its executives' salaries higher in the months leading up to its Chapter 11 filing, in what the creditors called a possible effort by Hostess to "sidestep" Bankruptcy Code compensation provisions.

The committee representing Hostess's unsecured creditors alleges that information it has gathered suggests "the possibility" that the company converted a chunk of its top executives' pay from performance-based bonuses to salary, "at least in part to sidestep" rules designed to ensure that companies in bankruptcy aren't enticing their employees to stay on board with the promise

Anyone shocked? This is the WSJ not exactly a lib rag.

Yeah because the folks making the LEAST amount of money are the greedy ones. Talk about getting a grip look in the mirror.

Greg Rayburn, who was later promoted to CEO, reportedly received a salary bump from $750,000 a year to well over $2 million. However a spokesperson for the company maintains that Rayburn's salary was only $100,000 a month. Roughly nine other executives were given raises, including a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000, and another from $375,000 to $656,256.

Brian J. Driscoll, that CEO who had his salary bumped to $2.55 million by the board

The problem is unions? Middle clas folks that want a home and a decent life for their family for busting their tails, day in and day out to make this crap?
Maybe its over the last 30 years, CEO pay grew 127 times faster than worker pay, according to a July report.

Tell me again who the greedy ones are? The ones that want decent wages and benefits, or the ones who........Ya and you embiciles wonder why the American way of life is in the crapper? WOW!! Dont pay attention to math, just keep flabbering on about how much you hate people coming together to negotiate fair wages and benefits.

Walter you are getting closer to understanding, now if you could just back up and look at the big picture you might grasp it. The union wanted more jobs. The union didn't care if the business model could support the jobs, they were only thinking about collecting as much dues as long as possible as they could, in their eyes better to have more for a while than a little forever. I agree the greedy nature runs rampant in unions and their leadership.

Frusion.....Thanks for the vote of confidence, but that wasn't me:) Haven't been to south beach in over 20 years.......

+1 Benghazi...I always have been a proponent of tying health insurance premiums to the lifestyles that the insurance policies cover. If you eat like crap, are overweight, smoke, never exercise you should pay a much higher premium than someone who eats properly, doesn't smoke and routinely exercises....It just makes sense that those that enter into risky behavior with their health should pay a higher premium......

And 916WI recently won best body contest in South Beach Florida

Low sales are the major side of the coin in this one, the union contract is just a coincidence.

The more popular Hostess products are sure to be revived/produced in states that don't have the problems concerning the labor unions. Obviously there is a market for the crap they peddle. One needs only to make a trip to the Janesville Mall to people watch--their products clearly sell well in south central Wisconsin........Happy Thanksgiving!

Shrek,
Do you have a source on that info? Sharing means caring you know.

Don't let the truth get in your way.
***
The raises for executives were rescinded. They actually had their salaries cut to a lower level than what they were making before the raises.
***
The yearly cost of the debt incurred is $45 million, the overall loss was around $340 million. The debt is not the main problem
***
The MEPP cost Hostess $100 million in retiree benefits last year, even though many of the retirees never worked for Hostess.
***
The union was offered 25% of the company in exchange for salary and benefit concessions.
***
While the company may have been mismanaged, the unions unreasonable demands are really what put them out of business.

RAF,
Yes. The rules were requested by the Union to keep as many of them working as possible. The more rules like that in place, the more employees you'll need. The management of the company agreed to those rules. Those rules, however silly they may have been, are not the primary reason why this company failed. Coming out of bankruptcy with hundreds of millions in debt and then doubling that debt in a matter of a few years after the bankruptcy was why the company failed. The debt is the responsibility of the management. The union/workers responsibility is to make a good product and deliver it to market. They held up their end of the bargain.

More great behavior from unions..."One of Los Angeles' largest public employee unions admitted Tuesday that a staffer sent an email to members asking that they sign "fake names/addresses" on a petition being circulated by former Mayor Richard Riordan to place a pension initiative on the ballot."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20...

Union members and other 18,400 employees now turn on union and leader for the lies about Hostess giving more and new buyer coming in to save them. All to keep them out of work as it turns out.
But hey, Mr Hunt is still enjoying his big salary as a 1%'er.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-20...

Has anyone here dealt directly with Hostess as a vendor? I did for almost 10 years and I can tell you without pause, the Union is the least of their problems.
While haveing almost no business plan , treating their customers, vendors, sellers like trash wll while giving management 35-85% raises? Funny how so many blame the union, isnt it? If your business faces bankruptcy on multiple occasions how could anyone get a raise, let alone 85% raises? Anyone?

Walter the rules I quoted were requested by the union. You know the same one you claim had nothing to do with the downfall of the company. You faux claim you understand business, but when you make careless remarks like, "...these rules, which were primarily meant to keep as many people working as possible", it is clear your only perspective is from organized labor. Viewing through tainted glasses is hardly an approach to an honest view of the whole situation.

Ezoner
1) I was only pointing out that the Hostess management agreed to every single rule.
2)"irregardless" really isn't a word
3) You might want somebody to take a look at your books. From the sounds of things you might be in real trouble. If you're not, you could probably be doing much better.

Ezoner, good luck with your businesses.

Walter -- Cherry Pick -- ???? You must be joking. The items listed have a major impact on product cost and as the product flows may cause to double , triple or even quadruple the cost -- especially when rejectshappen or quality drops.

There is absolutely NO WAY that these rules reduce costs, they only increase costs, and exponentially.

Poo -- again -- quit reading your books. Not all they taught you in school is correct....I would love to have this as a conversation -- but really cannot on a board. Most companies today seperate out the sub components of cost -- the material can and is fixed in a high volume run product. The labor associated becomes a fix and variable cost component built into the material and can be broken out as part of the material cost structure. Once material is fixed... labor is the variable cost component. Volume of units per hour -- which is labor based. The fixed portion is fixed irregardless of that volume.

"Wonder why the collective barganing scheme required 372 different work rules? They needed 80 health plans and 40 pension plans? Drivers were not allowed to load their own trucks? People who loaded bread couldn't load cake?"

Easy to cherry pick a few rules that seem odd to us outsiders, but let's not forget that the management side agreed to each and every one of these during contract negotiations. Also, many of these rules, which were primarily meant to keep as many people working as possible, went out the window in the first bankruptcy. The elimination of many of those rules led to thousands being laid off.

Ezoner, you keep confusing the price of flour with the total cost of flour. So what if the price of flour remains the same for each Twinkie? As your output of Twinkies increases, your total cost of flour increases. As your output of Twinkies decreases, your total cost of flour decreases. The total cost of your materials (flour) varies with your output! You need to understand the very simple definitions of variable and fixed costs that have been used for decades and decades.

"Variable Costs and Fixed Costs

All the costs faced by companies can be broken into two main categories: fixed costs and variable costs.

Fixed costs are costs that are INDEPENDENT OF OUTPUT. These remain constant throughout the relevant range and are usually considered sunk for the relevant range (not relevant to output decisions). Fixed costs often include rent, buildings, machinery, etc.

Variable costs are costs that VARY WITH OUTPUT. Generally variable costs increase at a constant rate relative to labor and capital. Variable costs may include wages, utilities, materials used in production, etc." [ http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/... ] or any other of the hundreds of thousands of websites and business and accounting textbooks that offer the definitions.

Look Poo -- the cost of the flour for a single HoHo does not change. The variable cost of labor does, as the cost for the labor is spread out accross more or less hohos. The material itself is fixed. Its the labor content which is some fixed and some variable.

Ezoner, VCM is not the subject we've been discussing. We've been discussing the definition of fixed and variable costs. You can't be serious when you say, "The only thing variable about material is the labor to handle the material." What if your sales increase, you produce more product and use more materials? Do your total material expenses increase (vary)? If your sales decrease, you produce less product and use less materials; do your total material expenses decrease (vary)?

If not, please give me the name of your vendors. There are many businesses that would love to have a source that will deliver any quantity of materials you ask for at one fixed total price. $1000 for 1,000 pounds of materials or 1,000,000 pounds of materials. Just let us know if you need more -- no additional costs.

Poo -- VCM only includes the labor associated with handling the materials and not the material cost itslef. Material costs are fixed. The material itslef is part of the fixed cost equation for the product. Again -- If we were meeting face to face it would be much easier to explain. But this has been the case with all successful companies I have been working for. The only thing variable about material is the labor to handle the material.

Yeah, the unions fault...not. http://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/vulture_...

Wonder why the collective barganing scheme required 372 different work rules? They needed 80 health plans and 40 pension plans? Drivers were not allowed to load their own trucks? People who loaded bread couldn't load cake?

Yep I am sure all this helps the bottom line....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Funny reading all the socialist unioncrats try to put forth all their business skillzzz.

Ezoner, the definition of fixed costs are those costs that do not vary with changing levels of sales and/or production. If costs vary with changing levels of sales and/or production, they are variable costs.

You have confused the contracted (fixed as you call it) price of materials with the definition of a fixed expense. Because you have negotiated to pay a fixed price for a pound of flour does not make flour a fixed expense of your business because if you sell/produce more Twinkies you will use more flour and your expenses will increase and if you sell/produce fewer Twinkies you will use less flour and your expenses decrease. The expense of flour varies with your sales and/or production and is therefore a variable expense of your business.

why do so many people say it is either management or the unions that destroyed Hostess, isn' tit more likely it is a combination of both?

Ezoner,
If you are truly a competent businessman, you know as well as anyone that even contracts that contain negotiated "fixed" prices for necessary commodities, in this case flour, sugar, corn, etc, contain clauses for extraordinary circumstances such as a recession deeper than anything since the Great Depression. The fact is that the price of all those commodities did increase rapidly during the recession which hit Hostess hard. Not only that but demand has been decreasing with more Americans focusing on eating healthy and saving money. I grant you that the company has been poorly managed for sometime but it wasn't until private equity firms got involved that the union represented employees of Hostess started getting used as pawns in a money making scheme. When a union sits down to negotiate the assumption is that management is there to do the same thing in good faith. That was not the case here. The employees' benefits were being raided so that the money saved could be divided up among a small group of investors. The workers were told it was to save their jobs, but the PE firm didn't know or care really if the jobs were going to be saved. PE firms do whatever they have to do and say whatever they have to say to procure the largest return on investment possible even if that means threatening or even destroying the secure future retirement that had originally been promised to the hard working employees of a company.

There was talk of a company from Mexico having interest in purchasing Hostess.. Imagine the possibility's Taco, Burrito, Nacho, Enchillada, flavored Twinkies... yum yum..

You are wrong Ezoner
http://www.channel3000.com/money/Hostess...

Lets get back to the real problem
"Nobody wants to have anything to do with these old plants or these unions or these contracts"

Ultimately -- thats it. So if the employees want to hold out for better, let them buy it in bankruptsy.

Poo -- Are you really that dumb..... NO -- you forecast and negotiate a fixed price .... listen and quit just reading books..... Believe me -- I know -- if you are doing it right it will be fixed.... if your doing it wrong it will vary. You can move a variable cost item to fixed cost.... If you had an hour to explain and could take your head out of only what books teach I could help you.

Negotiating contracts has nothing to do with whether or not the items contracted are fixed or variable expenses. Simply because you pay a fixed price for a pound of flour does not make flour a fixed expense. If sales increase you'll buy more flour, if sales decrease you'll buy less flour -- making flour a variable expense based on your sales/production.

Poo -- anyone with a 1/2 common sense negotiates fixed price contracts on major material costs -- like say flour, etc... so you nearly negate any variability in material costs. Real life is not what you get from a book. Companies that fail to do so will ultimately fail. There are generally escalations / auto matic clauses to address severe market shifts, like fuel surcharges. But most of the variability is removed. You generally in a well established industry and products such as these have very good forecasting tools, such that material variability is removed.

And who pays the price here.....ME!
No more twinkies, no more ding dongs, hoho's, snowballs, and cupcakes

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2012/11...

Union looking for billionaire to buy out and get them back to work...what hypocrites, talk about blinking.

Ezoner, material costs are variable, not fixed costs. They will vary with production and sales volume. Unless, of course, your company keeps making the same number of Twinkies and Ding Dongs regardless of how many you sell.

Ezoner said, " I rolled debt in the fixed costs...."

You mentioned "two fixed costs" in your equation: capital expenditures and material costs. You didn't mention debt.

Ezoner said, "Normally -- fixed costs are based upon assets and assets have value and are depreciated. So yes -- debt is there."

Debt is not an asset -- it's just the opposite -- a liability; debt is not depreciated. So no, debt was not in your equation.

You insist in blaming labor with the finality of shutting down with comments like, "Labor sealed to deal to close." Labor doesn't make the decision to close the doors, that would be management and in the case of Hostess it was after many concessions by labor over many years of failed corporate management.

Third_Eye, or an Investment Group.
You of course remember Janesville based Parker Pen? They were purchased by Blue Arrow Investments out of the UK. The rest is history.

Poo -- I rolled debt in the fixed costs.... Normally -- fixed costs are based upon assets and assets have value and are depreciated. So yes -- debt is there. In the end -- labor costs were still the only tool the company had. Its much the same as the US economy. You want the public to pay more for a product that just doesnt show the value. Without removing costs. The only choice left is to reduce costs -- operating costs including labor and variable facility costs of operations -- i.e. shut a plant down. They had no choice.

No as others have stated -- previous management may have played a role, but labor certainly is part of the equation and at the end , when the company was just hanging on. Labor sealed to deal to close. You can argue that they did was right or wrong, but they closed the shop by not accepting the deal.

Ezoner said, "So in the equation, the inability to resolve the labor costs caused the company to liquidate."

Your textbook equation unfortunately ignores one of the greatest challenges Hostess historically faced to success, servicing of their debt. Your analysis that reduces the problem to one of labor costs, while totally ignoring debt burdens, is obviously biased. Third_Eye had it right; this was a failure of one management team after another over many years.

Third_Eye, it went to heck when Ralston Purina sold Continental Baking Co. to Interstate Bakeries Corporation in 1995. That was when the company was infected with the modern day CEO virus. It was all downhill from there.

A word to the wise: If the company you work for is purchased by a 'holding comany' start working on your resume.

Walter. Your posts blaming current or recent mangement of Hostess don't go back far enough. Why was it in trouble in the first place? Many news stories have pointed out that Hostess has outdated equipment, some dating to the 1930's. Why did they not keep pace with equipment updates in the 40's, 50's, 60's and on?
The answer is poor company management over many many years. Now you want to blame the market as being unfair when investors with various motives come in and buy a badly run company.
The bottom line is that in a capitalist society many fail some succeed.

In the same industry is McKee Foods, makers of Little Debbie snacks, a well run company. They have expanded and improved over the same time period as Hostess. It's all in the management.
The liberals like to wring their hankies over the failures rather than cheer the successes.

pharm -- its sounds to me that this employee had plenty of notice and that if they were unahappy they could have looked for work elsewhere. They choose to stay and by doing so contributed to the demise of the company -- if they were indeed part of the union. If the cost structure dictates that you are unable to make a profit given the equation of labor + materials + capex is less than the revenue you can generate based upon market price -- then comapnies generally tackle capex and material costs 1st. Once they have expired what they can accomplish what can be done with those two fixed cost numbers, they must look at headcount and wages. If they are unable to address wages, then they have no choice but to close the doors.

So in the equation, the inability to resolve the labor costs caused the company to liquidate. No matter how you dice it, the union dealt the final blow. It was their choice to attempt to save the company and in this example the unions inflexibility to likely accept 401k type plans, has actually hurt the employees, as the $3 / hr could have been contrbuted to a trasnferrable plan that would have actually allowed employees to continue to save towards retirement and the ability to transfer the savings. In this situation, the union and employees exposed themselves to a far greater risk than a 401k would have provided.

So ask yourself -- would the employees have been better to leave earlier, accept the pay reductions, or close the plant and affect 18,000+ employees. To me -- there are no winners. All will lose. The executives will also be looking for employment when this is done. All will be out of work, and a well known American brand will likley be taken over by a forgein investor and the jobs will be moved out of the US. Facilities will be shut down and the capex will be sold or aquired and relocated by the investor at bankruptsy. It is a sad day for all.

To come out of the first bankruptcy in 2009 the unions agreed to an annual giveback of 110 million dollars. This included pay cuts, benefit cuts and thousands of union workers laid off. Hostess also received $360 million in fresh captial through a secured loan and $130 million from their primary investor Ripplewood Holdings. What did they do with this money? Nothing. It stands to reason that it mostly went to the investors in the PE firms and hedge funds involved because they knew that they'd never be responsible for paying it back. Nothing was done to make Hostess more competitive. Pricing wasn't changed to keep pace with the market. Delivery trucks and baking and packaging equipment remained out dated and unreliable which added heavily to production and delivery costs. Ultimately, this company has been repeatedly used as a pinata by vulture capitalists. They just keep on beating it to see if they can get any more treats to come out. That's why they went back to the negotiating table to try to get the unions, who just a few years ago gave up so much in good faith, to give up even more money that could be counted as a return on the PE firms' and hedge funds' investments. The unions had had enough. They wanted their pensions left intact, so they were willing to give up their jobs. Who can blame them? Their jobs were going to constantly be in jeopardy anyway, and if they were ultimately laid off after giving up more and more of their pensions, where were they going to find a job that offered a pension in this economy? What's the likelihood of a 401k rebuilding what they had already lost in time for them to retire? The union was smart to stand firm even at the cost of jobs. At least their pensions will be honored. They'll struggle to find work, but their security in retirement was hopefully secured by their bold actions. I hope unions will continue to draw attention to the lazy, soulless interpretation of "investing" that is private equity.

With sales of $2.5 billion, even if the average worker earned $50K, wages would make up less than 40% of total earnings. Evidently the Hostess ownership and management couldn’t survive on $1.55 billion in profits by producing a snack food with mostly artificial ingredients. I’d say the Ownership and Management is derelict, not the workers. The decision to file bankruptcy provided the most profit for the Ownership – the workers were NOT a consideration. Ownership has every right to maximize their profits but it’s wrong to blame workers. Some accuse the Hostess workers of being greedy for fighting to earn a living wage while Management earned anywhere from 12.5 to 41 TIMES what the HIGHEST paid worker earned. The Hostess bankruptcy proves that serving the corporate interests is more important than job creation. Hostess will be back and those who choose to work there will likely be earning minimum wage. You can't grow an economy when only the top 1% of the population benefit.

" In 2005 before concessions I made $48,000, last year I made $34,000. My pay changed dramatically but at least I was still contributing to my self-funded pension.

In July of 2011 we received a letter from the company. It said that the $3+ per hour that we as a Union contribute to the pension was going to be 'borrowed' by the company until they could be profitable again. Then they would pay it all back. The Union was notified of this the same time and method as the individual members. No contact from the company to the Union on a national level.

This money will never be paid back. The company filed for bankruptcy and the judge ruled that the $3+ per hour was a debt the company couldn't repay. The Union continued to work despite this theft of our self-funded pension contributions for over a year. I consider this money stolen. No other word in the English language describes what they have done to this money.

After securing our hourly cash from the bankruptcy judge they set out on getting approval to force a new contract on us. They had already refused to negotiate outside of court. They received approval from the judge to impose the contract then turned it over to the Union for a vote. You read that right, they got it approved by the judge before ever showing to the Union.

What was this last/best/final offer? You'd never know by watching the main stream media tell the story. So here you go...
1) 8% hourly pay cut in year 1 with additional cuts totaling 27% over 5 years. Currently, I make $16.12 an hour at TOP rate of pay in the bakery. I would drop to $11.26 in 5 years.
2) They get to keep our $3+ an hour forever.
3) Doubling of weekly insurance premium.
4) Lowering of overall quality of insurance plan.
5) TOTAL withdrawal from ALL pensions. If you don't have it now then you never will.

Remember how I said I made $48,000 in 2005 and $34,000 last year? I would make $25,000 in 5 years if I took their offer".
Letter from a Hostess employee.

5600 union members now cost 18000 jobs. And the union weakens itself just a little bit more.

Unions do not exist without Capitalism. Once a champion for fair wages and better working conditions is now under the thumb of marxism and greed any imperial would be proud of.

18000 out and the ripple effect of other smaller businesses out.
Which 1%'er still continues to maintain a hefty salary and full pension/benefits from the backs of workers still trying to hang on?

Labor union leaders. The grand takers of our society.

Other reasons...interesting...
.
http://blog.chron.com/lorensteffy/2012/1...

Evil VC's clearly ruined this company. Union rules, regulations, pay scales had nothing to do with it. I heard the head of the AFL-CIO screaming at the camera that unions would not be bullied in to consessions in situations like this. What a great opportunity for unions everywhere to secure a future for their members. Buy Hostess using union pension funds , reverse the wage cuts, restore the benifits, put management in place that isn't "greedy", give everyone their fair share and put all profits (which will clearly flow like wine) in to the depleted penison funds.
How hard can it be? Union leaders have been telling management how to run companies and be profitable for years. What a great opportunity to put their money where their big mouths are.

It wasn't the Unions that did this. Anyone that is blaming the Unions are foolish. Anyone that has inside information knows for a fact that the workers are not responsible for this. This was a problem with management from the top down.

Follow the money, not the rhetoric.

PanamaRed sounds like he has worked for the company in the past.

There is greed everywhere, like the real estate clubs pricing homes at unaffordable levels.

why-think and others will never get it. They are blind to the fact that the obscene requests by unions are destroying jobs. What's more, they dont care who they hurt, how many companies they cripple, all in the interest of their own greed. Greed by union leadership, greed by the members. These are the same people that cite terms like , living wage, but fail to define it. These are the same people that want to bring back the inheritance tax, unless its their parents home. These people are the examples of greed, they signify the very actions of those they say they are against. Its only a bad thing -- if its not them.... They cannot see making a contribution on their wages for the better good of the 18,500 employees. So they bring down all.

Actually if you look into it the executives were going to leave until the bankruptcy judge allowed their pay increase to retain them. If you really think a couple million dollars affected this outcome you are not living in a reality world. With 18,500 employee's that would be a very small percent.

Does anyone know what the striking workers were making per hour?

Crippling strike? Check the facts of the pay raise the CEO and high execs gave themselves prior to "liquidating"!

Typical RAF - blathers on without an ounce of understanding.

Any of you saying the union is not to blame here is out of touch with reality. It's this same thing that lost our GM plant whether you want go admit it or not that last un-needed strike sealed our fate.

Ignorance 101
.
Instructor:ROADKILLWI
.
Lesson:ANOTHER COMPANY PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY GREEDY UNIONS.
.
FACTS:
.
Hostess had already reached a contract agreement with its largest union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
.
Hostess, founded in 1930, was fighting battles beyond labor costs. Competition is increasing in the snack space and Americans are increasingly conscious about healthy eating.
.
Hostess had already stopped contributing to employee pensions, was swimming in debt, and demanded that workers take an additional 27%-32% pay cut.
.
The CEO running Hostess raised his income from $750K to $2.55 million just prior to the filing of their first bankruptcy.
.
What the "right" does not get is this IGNORANCE and HATE is what cost them the election. They see an article with "out of buisness" and "union strike" and they don't WANT or need any more information.
.
Most of us want more information. What Rush and Fox told us simply isn't enough. Once again, the FACTS show that executives were paid an extreme amount of money yet those on the "right" want to blame the middle-class worker.
.
More than likely, neither was at fault. Think about our changing society. If you want junk food, a doughnut is now easier to get than say, 20 years ago. And guess what, most are looking eat junk.
.
The bottom line, this is unfortunate for the workers but those running the company should have seen this coming.
.
Prayers for the workers now unemployed and those who hate them for being (and believing they should continue to be) middle-class.

It's sad to see a company shut down,i see it as both sides are at fault!!
I haven't eaten any of those sugar things since i was a kid,so that part i have never missed...

What the Twinkie workers do
is the Twinkie worker's business.
If you have a problem with that,
you can always start your own Twinkie factory
and show everyone how easy it is.
(Although you may run into some licensing issues.)
;-)

"All of the blame of unions by Hostess and the right wing media is a bunch of malarkey designed to further the conservative agenda of destroying organized labor. The reality is that by closing the company, the investment bankers that run Hostess can suck even more profit out of an already twice bankrupted company. The door is open for someone to buy the company, and relocate it to a right to work state.

According to Fortune, this is how Hostess emerged from bankruptcy in 2009, “Hostess was able to exit bankruptcy in 2009 for three reasons. The first was Ripplewood’s equity infusion of $130 million in return for control of the company (it currently owns about two-thirds of the equity). The second reason: substantial concessions by the two big unions. Annual labor cost savings to the company were about $110 million; thousands of union members lost their jobs. The third reason: Lenders agreed to stay in the game rather than drive Hostess into liquidation and take whatever pieces were left. The key lenders were Silver Point and Monarch. Both are hedge funds that specialize in investing in distressed companies — whether you call them saviors or vultures depends on whether you’re getting fed or getting eaten.”

Hostess was a distressed company that was taken over by Bain style management that had one eye on closing the company the whole time. Hostess had already stopped contributing to employee pensions, was swimming in debt, and demanded that workers take an additional 27%-32% pay cut.

The vulture capitalists don’t care that 18,500 people just lost their jobs. Like Mitt Romney, to the job killers running Hostess profit is king. The Hostess brand will resurface. It is likely to come back in a Southern red state with a labor force earning a bit above minimum wage and no benefits. The Twinkie will be back, but those 18,500 decently paying jobs with benefits will never return."

your union dollars at work for you.

I ate Hostess products for years before my heart attack. I've not had any since then and miss the creamy-greasy consistency of a good Twinkie or Ho-Ho. I can't imagine them being mass-produced in Japan or China under varying production and health standards. I hope they keep their hands off my Twinkies and don't touch my Ding-Dongs. Will you be a future customer if production shifts to Asia?

Typical RAF.
;-)

RAF,
You pointed out that Stryker Corp is laying off 1,000 people. You call that doing alright?

Funny how the left only wants to compare two things when comparing spending between ours and other nations. They claim those same things are not worth looking at when comparing things like education or welfare spending.

"Typical" dtb, not only are you out of touch you're out of context. Wally's quote was in reference to a company doing just fine. The opposite of the Twinkie company run into the ground by dems.

ACA=A bailout of an overpriced system, no fix just money thrown at it, a bailout with different labels, big deal.

You got that perfectly wrong, MBHammer. The United States currently spends more than any country on healthcare per capita and as a percentage of GDP and we still have 1/3rd of our population not covered by healthcare insurance.

We spend 17.4% of our GDP on healthcare. As a comparison, France spends 11.8% and Canada spends 11.4%. We spend $7,960 per capita on healthcare, France spends $3,978 and Canada spends $4,363.

So, as you see, the great bailout has been to the United States healthcare insurance providers for the last 30 years, and not the ACA.

The largest bailout is yet to come, it's called the ACA.

And we have seen how bailing out these companies have gone very wrong. Especially, when the bailouts were supposed to help save the companies, not give huge bonuses and extravagant outings.

I remember buying Twinkies for 9 cents for two when I was a kid.

I wonder what would happen if RAF couldn't use the word "typical" in a post for a whole day.

Would he post at all?

RAF pulls a quote out of context. How un-surprising. "evils of profiting". Quite a different matter when you include "evils of profiting from human illness and suffering". I don't think anyone is against a company making a fair profit, but when it reaches this level for this reason (loading up a company with debt and sucking all available money out of the venture to the point of shutting the company down) there is a moral issue to consider.

I certainly hope he never accuses anyone of taking anything out of context.

Really!! Quit blaming the employees for your own mistakes and greed.

RetiredAirForce, to suggest that the phrase "evils of profiting" is "more socialist blather," displays a basic misunderstanding of both socialism and profit motive. Try to name one socialist economy in the world that does not utilize profit motive; in other words, name one socialist economy that does not practice market socialism.

You also need to research the concept of profit efficiency. The objection to what has happened in so many cases like the case of Hostess Brands is the unsustainable degree to which profits have been extracted from businesses and not an objection to profits or the profit motive (both of which, when coupled with profit efficiency, are integral parts of a market socialism economy).

Once again...RAF= Rhetoric Against Facts

"evils of profiting"....more socialist blather

RAF,
Yes you limit costs, but you don't ever put yourself in a position to be unable to meet customer needs unless you were already planning to shut down production anyway. In reading those articles on that google search, you can see that Stryker was laying off people before the Supreme Court had even ruled on the Affordable Care Act. Blaming the layoffs on health care reform was just a PR move aimed at sympathetic or uninformed ears. Clearly, the company was having problems even before President Obama took office and the ACA was an easy scapegoat. It really shows how little intergrity those running the company really have, regardless of their political affiliation. It also goes to show that when it comes to the evils of profiting from human illness and suffering, your politics really don't matter.

RAF,
A very thorough article by David Kaplan is at the heart of that blog post you linked your comment to. It proves that it doesn't matter who is at the head of a private equity firm, Dem or Repub, private equity, in many cases, is still out to do nothing but screw the little guy. For years various PE firms have been using Hostess to load up with debt and see how much money they can make for a realtively small group of investors even if that means negotiating unions out of their pay and benefits with the threat of losing their jobs. Well, the union finally got tired of giving in and decided that their future stability in retirement was worth more than temporarily keeping their job only to watch some other PE firm step in after this bankruptcy, run up more debt that they wouldn't be responsible for paying back, and try to negotiate more of the workers' pay and benefits away so investors can profit even more. You know, it's no wonder that there's so much ill will towards unions. The rich have a lot of sway, and some very powerful rich people love the idea of private equity schemes. Why? Because, if you have no soul, it's easy money that you don't have to do any real work to obtain. What stands in the way of PE firms continuing to stack debt on a company so that a privileged, already rich few will profit while the workers and tax payers get screwed? Unions whose members will stand united and, even at the cost of jobs, say "enough" based on sheer principle. That's who. What more unions should start doing is implement a blanket refusal to negotiate with proven huckster PE firms. Before even sitting down at the table, a PE company should have to prove their worth at creating long term jobs for the workers of the companies they've invested in. If they can't do such a thing, there should be zero cooperation from the unions. Just as the US has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, so too should unions have a policy of not negotiating with vulture capitalists. Even at the cost of people's jobs, the integrity of previous promises made must be upheld when average workers' future in retirement is at stake vs. the profit to be gained by some vulture capitalists. I really think that the more truth about what private equity can do to people's lives works its way into the working classes in this country, the more strength unions will start to regain. It will be a resurgence. Obviously, certain private equity practices can't be made illegal because the rich control the law making process. The working classes, the proletariat if you will, must take the power back for themselves.

imo...it's ridiculous to blame these people for closing the company; obviously things were going wrong at the management level and the strike was the tip of the iceberg that came at a very bad time for the company...why should the workers agree to pay cuts? it is not their fault the people in charge couldn't keep it together...blame the workers for the faults of the owner/manager; that's what I see here...I understand we all have to tighten our belts in tough times, but in this case it seems more like a noose, so why would anyone agree to hang themselves for their company?

walter why the silence on the heavy dem ties to the failed hostess company?

walter, spoken with typical union level spin. A profitable and successful company does not wait until they are in financial debt to limit costs, they anticipate expenses and plan accordingly. Your views reflect those of union mentality not business sense.

"Spoken like a person who has never spent one day running a business or having his/her own money on the line for anything."
Right, RAF. Your lack of understanding of labor costs means that I don't know how to run a business. I'm starting to understand how the righty fringe mind works now.

donnaw,
Solyndra's application for that loan arrived at the DOE in December of 2006. President Obama had little to nothing to do with the origins of the loan program that had been in place for years before he took office. The DOE was responsible for the loan approvals and had been working on that loan app for over 2 years. The loan approval wrapped up in March, 2009 not even 2 months after President Obama took office and the money reached Solyndra in September of that year.
As for your theory on the restructured loan, the investment arm of the Kaiser Family Foundation known as Argonaut ventures was heavily involved in private investment in Solyndra to keep the company afloat AFTER the government loan money had already been paid to Solyndra. The deal was restructured to recognize and compensate based on that fact. Kaiser doesn't stand, personally, to see any of that money anyway because, per the structure of his foundation, he can't take any money back that he has already contributed.
Also, it was the rapidly declining price of silicon that made traditional flat solar panels much cheaper to produce and pushed Solyndra's product out of the market. Was the DOE's loan to Solyndra a bad deal? Yep, but not all investments, no matter how well intended, are winners.
One final thing, as part of the $90 billion green energy program within the stimulus, $10 billion had already been set aside to cover potential losses. That was in language written into the bill that Congress passed. Congress actually anticipated far greater losses than what actually happened. After Solyndra there was still $9.5 billion in that fund.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...

Walter..also the loan was restructured by the admin so that a major Obama donor, as a private investor would be paid before the govt, -the taxpayers-in the event of bankruptcy, which is what happened. Little slippery? Just a half a billion taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Walter...the Obama admin gave a half billion of our tax dollars to Solyndra and several billion to other so called green energy companies. Solyndra was not vetted. They went bankrupt. So how is that "garbage"?

RetiredAirForce, thanks for that Pat Stryker link! Blond, divorced, and net worth $1.4 Billion... I think I've found my dream woman. After we're married, though, I'll need to convince her not to waste money on politics.

Interesting how the left fringe have started this ECHO campaign of evil bain, in a lame attempt to make this look like something different than what it really is. Those involved with shutting down this company have HEAVY ties to left wing side of politics; the dem party.

Wonder why the left and the sycophant media have ignored all this information? Must not meet their narrative, ehhh.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16...

Spoken like a person who has never spent one day running a business or having his/her own money on the line for anything. Typical of the socialist progressive view on the left fringe.

Nice page of links, RAF. I thought your implication was that Abound was going to layoff 1,000 people while it's actually Stryker Corp. Got it. You know what's interesting is that all those links make it clear that Stryker Corp is "blaming" their layoffs on Obamacare and that the layoffs come "ahead of" the provisions going into effect. Another key word used in the links is "anticipatory" in relation to the layoffs. No actual evidence could be provided by the company to prove that any provision in the Affordable Care Act led directly to the layoffs. It looks like a poorly managed company that is already in financial trouble is making excuses. Financially sound companies don't preemptively layoff their employees even if they anticipate future financial problems. Layoffs are an effect not a cause. Until you know for a fact that labor costs must be decreased in order to try to maintain viability, you don't reduce your workforce. If the variables change and your predictions are off base, being left without enough employees to maintain production can be a death sentence. Stryker Corp was probably already losing large amounts of money and rather than take their lumps they decided to pin it on the Affordable Care Act. This tactic only serves to prove how inept at business they are because no business worth it's salt is going to put itself in a position to not be able to meet production until they know for certain that they just don't have the work for the employees. To layoff workers based on provisions in a law that won't be going into effect for months is inept. Just look at the most recent example of Hostess. They've been hemorrhaging money for quite a while but it was a strike that put the people out of work not a layoff. Just as hiring is the last resort for a successful business, lay offs are the last resort for a struggling business.

walter uttered, "As for your claim about 1,000 workers (not sure where you got that number) being laid off due to "Obamacare contraints", I don't see any facts to back that up."
-
Why haven't you already read about it in the news? Oh yeah, because it was about a company run by rich dems' who support your guy that caused you to ignore it?

Do yourself a favor and break away fromtthe media spoon feed information of msnDNC/tp/huff post/kos/union-speak and reach out and look at things on your own, you just may learn something. Below are just a few quick hits on the information you have chosen to ignore.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Stryker+l...

Macdaddy, I wonder if you realize that when you say Twinkies you are referring to the distressed asset vultures, like Romney and Bain, that control Twinkies. Nice to see them lose a few bucks while ravaging another company and its employees. I can only hope the money they pumped into the company went to the union workers and not to executive salaries and bonuses.

My favorite line I've seen is...

"Twinkies can survive a nuclear war, but not 4 years of Obama's presidency!"

I don't care which party you support that is funny right there.

Way to go union!! You just sunk your ship...lol.

Go easy on her WR, it's all she's got to hang on to at this point. The noose is tightening around Scott Doe and her POTUS candidate got pounded. All that's left is her hatred of Obama.

The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.

No, Big rich stogie smoking fat cat union leaders told there members no to this. WOW!

You go stand on the unemployment line instead.
Estimates cost now to taxpayers 5 million unemployment and welfare.
Union greed

RAF,
The reason your little example is a non-story in the context that you would like to it to be is because of the 26 companies that received loan guarantees through the green energy part of the stimulus only 3 have gone out of business. That's an 88% success rate. Pretty good. Of the $90 billion that went into green energy through the stimulus, Abound Solar received loan guarantees to the tune of $400 million of which tax payers will be on the hook for $40 to $60 million. $60 million represents less than one tenth of 1% of the total spent on green energy through the stimulus.
As for your claim about 1,000 workers (not sure where you got that number) being laid off due to "Obamacare contraints", I don't see any facts to back that up. The constraints that will be hitting employers don't go into effect until 2014 so any blaming of current layoffs on the Affordable Care Act is completely disingenuous.

Really, donnaw? Still harping about Solyndra?
A) This article has nothing to do with twice elected President Obama.
B) The Solyndra garbage is false.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

The vulture capitalists that took over Hostess never intended to meet the pension obligations. The union was smart to strike when it did rather than give up even more of their benefits than they already had before they realized they were being "harvested" as Mitt Romeny would call it. Yes, we as tax payers will be on the hook for it through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but that's a small price to pay to make sure that hard working Americans that were promised a secure retirement are not left with nothing when those promises are broken.

Nope, I don't believe there was a dress code in effect. Although they would probably be able to keep jobs which paid them $20+ an hour along with benefits for line work......Fairly good deal if you ask me.

When you have a little time to spend: http://www.twinkiesproject.com/

if they move to colorado they would be very profitable.

I find it interesting as I read these comments. This is just the free market at work. First of all you have management that evidently doesn't realize that with a large portion of the country becoming more health conscientious, the demand for their product has fallen. They appear to have made no plans for new products. Therefore very poor management. Poor management also always takes the easy choice and cuts wages and benefits, effective for a while, but never makes up for poor sales. Labor is also a product for sale. When the price that can be obtained for that labor reaches the point where the employees realize that the job is no longer worth selling their labor for, incidents such as this happen. I think this might be just the start of the push back against the continued downward spiral of wages.

Walter...just like Obama giving billions of OUR TAX DOLLARS to companies like Solyndra, etc. without vetting them. At least the Hostess CEO 's didn't use tax payer money. And now the management staff doesn't have jobs either. If they were a large bank or a car company Obama would have bailed them out.

A note to the Unions.....
You're not doing yourself any favors in the court of public opinion. You better get your acts together and fall into line

The unions strike again !

As is the case with the hapless left, they fall short of conviction of positions while only complaing of the Rich/CEO's/subsides/benifits when it suits their political taste.

Not a one of them have said anything about Pat Stryker http://www.forbes.com/profile/pat-stryke... a high roller on the forbes top lists. She is a founding member in the Soros' scheme democracy aliance, a campaign bundler for obama, and a heavy investor in a failed solar company. Her and her brothers inherited company is laying off over a 1,000 people due to obamacare constraints. The failed solar company also used federal dollars and is being investigated for fraud http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/c...

But hey, since there was no union involved and she is a democrat soros/obama supporter the non-conviction having left remain silent for cases like this.

Only in the Republican mindset are unions evil for trying to increase benefits to the people that run and maintain the means of production while giving a CEO of a failing company hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in benefit increases is perfectly fine.

More corporate greed.

After more info comes out, some are saying the execs are cooking the books and getting rich while laying people off. Ahhh...the truth comes out!!!!
.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11...

Just because the rich could buy Hostess, it doesn't mean they are smart enough to successfully run a company. All they knew what to do was run it in the ground and take all the money. It sure sounds like what Rmoney and Bain was doing.

Yes according to socialist thinking CEO pay is always the problem, yet these same people have no problem with taxing them more. Can't let them make more money but they have no problem taking it away to redistribute.

Unions? hah. they filed for bankruptcy twice and didn't have a solid business model. They were deep in debt for a number or reasons, one of which you can ask yourself: When was the last time you bought a twinkie? Didn't think so.

Article: How Hostess failed...Hedge funds vs Unions.
.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-hoste...
.
It sure sounds like the people that took over Hostess in 2009 are like Bain and Romney.

One thing that can't be denied: 18,500 people are now out of work. Both sides were at fault in the long run. The union didn't think Hostess would close---------now they have to come up with an explination why it did to their fellow out of work union members. The company said what it would do and it did. Hate to be a union leader explaining why Mommy and Daddy are out of work especially at this time of year.

You're correct TCB. I did a poor job of explaining the fact that the CEO's earnings rose from $750K to $2.55 million prior to Hostess's first bankruptcy. Yet that doesn't change the facts. So how does a company heading for bankruptcy justify rewarding ONE member of their management team with a $1.8 million dollar pay increase? Having not been part of the negotiations it's impossible to know what the employees were actually offered. Yet as worker pay declines, CEO pay reaches new highs. THAT is the problem.

A union representative did not immediately return a call seeking comment. IDEA-They could put poobah's post on their answering machine for when their Union brothers and sisters call looking for work-
"Mitt will buy the distressed company and sell it off for a handsome profit. Of course, he won't have the pleasure he gets from firing people if they're already gone. But, hey, he's got plenty of time now. Ding dong!" We've already fired ya all. Happy Thanksgiving.

Your union dollars at work.

Most of the newly unemployed Hostess workers won't qualify for state unemployment benefits because they were on strike. The striking workers voluntarily gave up their jobs - they flat-out refused to report to work.

oh- ps and you would STILL have your J.O.B.
uc pays max about $350 ish a week?

I think lots in these times have taken some cut but we keep our job because yes- better than UC. Well I think so anyway.
So if they make $50,000 before tax they lose $4000 which isn't $4000 after tax. This is only for one year. The next year with the increase it is only down $2680.
So I did this math. In 5 yrs theyll be getting 50,767.they still have bennies too of some kind where as most people don't at all.

Seems like a bad idea now that states are legalizing pot. That is a missed business opportunity.

The new contract cuts salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement. Salaries then bump up 3% in the next three years and 1% in the final year.

Hostess has also reduced its pension obligations and its contribution to the employees' health care plan. In exchange, the company offered concessions including a 25% equity stake for workers and the inclusion of two union representatives on an eight-member board of directors.

No, Big rich stogie smoking fat cat union leaders told there members no to this. WOW!
You go stand on the unemployment line instead.

"
BUt one thing will be certain... they wont be made with Union labor and probably will become imported."
so they will cost a lot less.
I do agree a job is still better than no job. Anybody know what they were stricking over. Cry baby stuff or something real?

So why didn't they let "scabs" work there.
Just look out for the union denting and slashing your car tires because YOU do want to work.

Can you imagine the first meeting Obama had wasn't with business owners or Congress leaders about the fiscal cliff but the Big Rich Boss Union leaders. Hoffa, Tumpka.

This fits Obamanomics trickle down government. 180 people in Wisconsin outlets also out.
Merry Christmas! Thanks for joining the 47% on Government welfare.

Who still has a big million dollar salary smoking on their stogies? Union Bosses.

"Hostess Brands Inc. says it’s going out of business after striking workers across the country crippled its ability to make its Twinkies, Ding Dongs and other snacks."
lol wouldn't shutting it down cripple your business too?????? duh

So much for solidarity. The bakers union threw the teamsters union under the bus and out of a job ingnoring a court order.

Walker should think about Wisconsin as a right to work state.

"Right to work" without union wage extractors.

TCB,
The unions aren't going away either. Depending on where the new owners attempt to do business will determine how easy they'll have it in trying to hire without union involvement. I have a feeling that wherever they go Teamsters and Bakers union organizers will be close by. I agree that there is a market clearing wage for CEOs. Therein lies a huge problem. CEO pay should be based on the back end. Who's writing the contracts for these guys? These boards of directors should link the CEO's pay directly to the success of the company. There should be a fair base salary. If the CEO wants any more, he'll just have to make sure that the company makes more. It's called merit based pay. Isn't that all the rage these days?

Top management took "slashed" salary cuts as well as elimination of middle management jobs. While the union members where offered 25% stake in the company still not good enough for union leader.

Here Here TCB, you nailed it!

Clearly, this company was already in severe trouble. Looks like all this strike did was speed up the inevitable. If you can't provide a livable wage, proper health insurance and a secure retirement for the employees that keep the place running and keep whatever profits there are coming in, then you probably don't deserve to stay in business. Tough break for the people that worked there, but the economy is picking up. There will be other opportunities. Get some retraining. Get certified in computerized machining. It takes a semester or two. There are tons of companies that can't find enough qualified individuals. Those jobs pay 12, 15, sometimes 20 an hour to start. This isn't such a terrible story. This is capitalism. A few win and many lose. I think that slogan will be replacing E Pluribus Unum on our money any day now.

PanamaRed, thanks for posting that about the executive pay increases. I was about to but you beat me to it. Hostess has been circling the drain for about 2 years or more. It's much easier to blame the workers who didn't want their pay slashed than to blame the CEO who tripled his salary while the company went down in flames.

Panamared:

The Board of directors raised the CEO pay-the CEO himself simply didnt give himself an increase. I guess you've never worked with a board of directors and simply do no understand the process. There is a market clearing wage for all employees-including CEOs.

As for the company itself-a private equity firm will come in, buy the assets-perhaps all of the assets-which include real estate, equipment, good will (brands), etc. and then they will reorganize-AFTER creditors have been satisfied.

The losers-the union members. THe winners- the union leadership unaffected by their greed-the leaders remain employed. Twinkies, wonder bread, and ding dongs are not going away forever-they will be back, perhaps at a higher price, made by people who are happy to work for the new company.

Get a job, get a wage. Join a union, pay the piper.

Panama Red, What is the Salary of the union leader that just put 18000 out of business? 1.60 million a year. For doing nothing more then taking money from workers. CEO's were giving money to workers in exchange for their labor.

Beating a man when he's down poobah?

ECartman, haven't you heard? There is no such thing as trickle down according to the left.

"I think you call it collective stupidity."
-
Bowlgal, that’s a great description of how many Corporate Owners and CEO’s manage their businesses today. Profits fall yet CEO pay increases and worker pay shrinks.
-
The CEO running Hostess raised his income from $750K to $2.55 million just prior to the filing of their first bankruptcy. Then, after forcing workers to take a pay and benefit cut, Hostess hired a new CEO, Gregory Rayburn to turn the company around. Suppose he was paid $750K - that is 12.5 times MORE than the HIGHEST paid Hostess worker assuming that worker earned $25 dollars per hour. It’s more likely CEO Rayburn earned much more than $750K and the highest paid Hostess worker likely earned considerably less than $25 per hour. Employee’s were faced with continuously taking pay cuts until they reached minimum wage without benefits while Owners and Management continued to pay themselves high wages, reap lavish bonuses and obtain greater benefits. Owners and management put workers in a no-win situation. To blame the workers is to overlook the greed of Management.

How much stretching does the left have to do to go from union greed to Bush/Romney.

I imagine Mitt will buy the distressed company and sell it off for a handsome profit. Of course, he won't have the pleasure he gets from firing people if they're already gone. But, hey, he's got plenty of time now. Ding dong!

Not to mention the trickle down effect this will have on stores, and distributors accross the nation. I call on Obama for a Twinky bailout. Dang G.W. Bush!

RUSerious Nov 16, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. "How many of us could survive or should be expected to accept it graciously if our income was slashed?"
And the answer is.....23 Million.

No, they didn't "slash". So minor that the Teamsters accepted it.
There was a small restructuring that a court ordered acceptance was in effect. The Baker's union, 5600 of them decided to ignore the court order. Now they have put 18,500 people out on there ears.

The unions and their power trip won and the workers loss as it is with unions these days.
I think you call it collective stupidity.

I admit I don't know the details of how much it would have affected the workers had they accepted the offer, but they were "rejecting a contract offer that SLASHED wages and benefits in September." (Emphasis was mine, but how much does "slashed" mean here?)
but is it possible they had nothing left to lose by rejecting the offer?
How many of us could survive or should be expected to accept it graciously if our income was slashed?

I'm sure non union wages and benefits were higher than union and not affected since they were not mentioned. Yet the union made the poor debt decisions?

Even the teamsters union talked and worked it out. But not the Baker's union. They ignored a court order to restructure.

Yup, Twinkie the Kid beaten to death by the blue fist.

In a company that was so saddled in debt that they were in chapter 11 and already running on the slimest of profit margins the union told the workers that a 'sugar daddy' was in the wings to buy the company.
Would this 'sugar daddy' cure the debt and give in to their demands without expecting a return on his investment?
Are the workers really so naive as to believe this?

For the entire script of the next 4 years read Atlas Shrugged.

ANOTHER COMPANY PUT OUT OF BUSINESS BY GREEDY UNIONS.

I'm not a big Hostess products fan but it's sad to see a few malcontents disrupt on entire company.

Hopefully in chapter 11 they can regroup without union interference.

Little Debbie's are headquartered in a right to work state - maybe they can step in.

Now who is going to manufacture healthy snacks?

5600 union members now cost 18000 jobs. And the union weakens itself just a little bit more.

I suspect someone will buy the bits and pcs of the company. Maybe we will now be eating Japanese or Chinese Twinkies.... BUt one thing will be certain... they wont be made with Union labor and probably will become imported.

Marge, dig up those Twinkies we buried in the backyard during the '73 Twinkie embargo. We're gonna make MILLIONS!

So, no job is better than having a job in todays uncertain economy. The union misled the employees and now it is to late to save the company. I really love "twinkees", but only have one about once a year. Mom used to pack them in our lunch a lot b4 they were considered junk food instead of a treat.

Aint that just a kick in the teeth? Unionistas strike, then the entire company folds. Good luck finding a new job, and if you are fortunate enough to get an interview somewhere, be sure to tell them about your great union experience. No matter really... You can easily join the already millions on welfare. Thank God for all you Obama/union supporters out there.