PDA

View Full Version : Unions




BAllen
11-19-2012, 02:59 PM
Since we're stuck with the current gubmint, thought I'd start a thread for unions. I hate it, but that's the way it is.
Here's one for retail workers:
http://www.rwdsu.org/

belian78
11-19-2012, 03:02 PM
hehe...

/popcorn.

Acala
11-19-2012, 03:08 PM
This OP is exhibiting trollish characteristics

BAllen
11-19-2012, 03:15 PM
You have a better idea, let's hear it.

belian78
11-19-2012, 03:24 PM
This OP is exhibiting trollish characteristics
That's why I was grabbing the popcorn. He/she is obviously someone's sockpuppet.

libertariantexas
11-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Maybe the unions can do something useful for a change and spend all that Union money on buying Hostess and getting the Twinkie line going again.

BAllen
11-19-2012, 03:27 PM
That's why I was grabbing the popcorn. He/she is obviously someone's sockpuppet.

Pfff!
Unfounded accusation. I simply look at things realisitically. With this current controlled economy, is there any way to restore freedoms? No. So, when life deals you lemons, you make lemonade. Since we're stuck with demonrats, the only viable option to make a decent income is to spread unions. As I said in a previous post: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

Acala
11-19-2012, 03:37 PM
Pfff!
Unfounded accusation. I simply look at things realisitically. With this current controlled economy, is there any way to restore freedoms? No. So, when life deals you lemons, you make lemonade. Since we're stuck with demonrats, the only viable option to make a decent income is to spread unions. As I said in a previous post: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

The RPF is FULL of better ideas. Years worth. Start reading the archives.

JK/SEA
11-19-2012, 03:39 PM
Maybe the unions can do something useful for a change and spend all that Union money on buying Hostess and getting the Twinkie line going again.

A Judge has ruled both sides must now mediate, stopping any closures.

http://www.king5.com/news/business/Judge-orders-Hostess-to-mediate-with-union-180004991.html

BAllen
11-19-2012, 03:43 PM
The RPF is FULL of better ideas. Years worth. Start reading the archives.

Not likely. You are the one making the accusations. It is up to you to prove it.

Origanalist
11-19-2012, 03:46 PM
Get's popcorn also. :)

tttppp
11-19-2012, 06:19 PM
Pfff!
Unfounded accusation. I simply look at things realisitically. With this current controlled economy, is there any way to restore freedoms? No. So, when life deals you lemons, you make lemonade. Since we're stuck with demonrats, the only viable option to make a decent income is to spread unions. As I said in a previous post: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

How about each employee negotiating his own wage? Not all employees are the same, so they should not all make the same salary. Additionally, something union fans never realize, even though unions help you keep your job, they also prevent you from getting promoted if you are worth it. There's tons of red tape to get someone promote through a union and the job usually goes to the person who's been there the longest, not the best employee. I consider myself the best, so please tell me how a union is suppose to help me.

BAllen
11-19-2012, 06:23 PM
How about each employee negotiating his own wage? Not all employees are the same, so they should not all make the same salary. Additionally, something union fans never realize, even though unions help you keep your job, they also prevent you from getting promoted if you are worth it. There's tons of red tape to get someone promote through a union and the job usually goes to the person who's been there the longest, not the best employee. I consider myself the best, so please tell me how a union is suppose to help me.

Oh, I never said it was the best option. I'm just saying that's all we have to deal with right now, like it or not.

phill4paul
11-19-2012, 06:28 PM
UWdude? UWdude, is that you? UWdude, come out, come out, wherever you are! I ain't no white trash piece of s--t. I'm better than you all! I can out-learn you. I can out-reach you. I can out-think you. And I can out-philosophize you. And I'm gonna outlast you. You think a couple whacks to my good ol' boy guts is gonna get me down? It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than that, UWdude, to prove you're better than me! I am like God, and God like me. I am as large as God. He is as small as I. He cannot above me, nor I beneath Him be. Silesius, 17th Century. UWdude? UWdude, could you be there? Could you be there? (He whistled) UWdude. I wonder if you're here. Ah, f--k it.

AGRP
11-19-2012, 06:34 PM
Oh hi UWdude.

dannno
11-19-2012, 06:41 PM
Oh hi UWdude.

Did he get banished back to Capitol Hill??

ghengis86
11-19-2012, 06:42 PM
A Judge has ruled both sides must now mediate, stopping any closures.

http://www.king5.com/news/business/Judge-orders-Hostess-to-mediate-with-union-180004991.html

Read this; it is truly surreal on all fronts.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-19/us-tries-wrest-control-hostess-liquidation-management-seeks-pay-175-million-incentiv

The Hostess bankruptcy liquidation, the result of a bungled negotiation between the company, its equity sponsors, its striking workers, and the labor union, over what has been defined as unsustainable benefits and pension benefits, is rapidly becoming a Ding Ding farce. The latest news in what promises to be an epic Chapter 22 fight is that the judge, pressured by various impaired stakeholders, among which none other than the US trustee, is that the bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain, who has previously presided over such Chapter 11 cases as Loral, RCN, Cornerstone, Refco, Allegiance Telecom, Delphi, Coudert Brothers, Frontier Airlines and Star Tribune, has ordered the company and its unions to seek private mediation to attempt averting what the company has already said is an inevitable unwind of operations.

Per Reuters, "Hostess, its lenders and the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM) agreed to mediation at the urging of Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York, who advised against a more expensive, public hearing regarding the company's liquidation. "My desire to do this is prompted primarily by the potential loss of over 18,000 jobs as well as my belief that there is a possibility to resolve this matter," Drain said." Sadly, this latest step will almost certainly lead to nothing constructive as it merely extends a status quo which already proved to be unresolvable.

What makes a mediation improbable is that the antagonism between the feuding sides has certainly hit a level of no return:

Several unions also objected to the company's plans, saying they made "a mockery" of laws protecting collective bargaining agreements in bankruptcy. The Teamsters, which represents 7,900 Hostess workers, said the company's plan would improperly cut the ability of remaining workers to use sick days and vacation.
In the off chance that mediation does lead to a reconstruction of the failed company it may ironically benefit from the closeout sale of its products as confused Americans hoarded Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Ho Hos in hopes of selling them on Ebay as collectible items with huge marks up, something we warned previously will fail. Regardless, the firesale will lead to a surge of cash in the company's coffers, which will then lead to a scramble over how it is divided.

Then comes the question of whether or not someone steps up in the liquidation process and buys the company in part or whole. Here we learn that Grupo Bimbo, long expected to be the natural suitor for at least the firm's trademarks and IP, will not participate in said process. Hostess CEO Rayburn said Grupo Bimbo won’t be a potential buyer for the bankrupt baker. “One misconception in the market is that Bimbo would be a buyer and bakery leadership told us in several plants that Bimbo would come in and buy, which is absurd,” Rayburn said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Rayburn cited Bimbo’s agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to sell some Sara Lee brands in order to complete its acquisition of Sara Lee’s North American bakery business. “Due to antitrust, it would never happen,” Rayburn said.

More to the point, and as we predicted on Friday, if there is an outright purchase of the company, it will be a standalone entity, without its unions: Hostess will draw strategic buyers and private-equity investors for its brands, Rayburn said, without naming potential bidders. The company is “more attractive” to buyers without the unions, he said. In other words, if the Union had hoped that their workers would be retained by the purchasing entity, their dreams just got shattered.

But while the Union may be sad, it is about to add another emotion to its arsenal: blind fury. Because it is here that things get truly surreal. As the US Trustee, a Justice Department official responsible for protecting creditors, disclosed, as part of the wind down of Hostess, wants to pay as much as $1.75 million in incentive bonuses to 19 senior managers during the liquidation.

This is just part of the millions to be spent imminently on the wind down:

The process requires “intensive” planning, staffing and funding, the company said. A fire-sale liquidation would damage equipment and result in improper disposal of waste materials.
*
It’s “not a simple matter of turning off the lights and shutting the doors,” Hostess said in court papers.
*
The baker estimated that shutting the plants will cost $17.6 million in the next three months. The plants have about $29 million worth of excess product ingredients, Hostess said.
*
About $6.9 million will be spent to close depots, while $8.8 million will be used to idle retail stores and $8.1 million will go to shutting corporate offices, according to a court filing. Perishable baked goods at retail stores will be sold at going-out-of-business sales, donated to charity or destroyed, Hostess said.
Most importantly, however, is the question how one explains to 18,500 workers who are already out and looking for jobs that the management team which was just as responsible for crushing the company deserves on average $92,000 each in "incentive bonuses, is anyone's guess and one does wonder what safety precautions said management team may have taken to protect from what is certain to be the collective wrath of its former workforce.

Naturally, the immediate outcome of this rather obscene demand, which may fly in a Chapter 11 KERP proposal but hardly is tenable in a liquidation proceeding, is that said US Trustee is now seeking to take control of the liquidation away from the company. As BBG reported earlier, "U.S. Trustee Tracy Hope Davis asked the judge to convert the case to a Chapter 7 from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, based partly on the company’s intent to pay bonuses, and appoint a trustee to supervise the wind-down."

But wait, it gets better: because it is quite likely that should an emboldened US Trustee get her wishes granted, will push to continue operating Hostess as a going concern, potentially with a court appointed, and US Trustee selected management team.

In essence this could result in a stealth nationalization of the junk food maker, which would preserve the jobs of the workers for the time being, but crush the balance of the capital structure, i.e., secured and unsecured creditors.

Impossible, you say? It has happened, to a big extent, before. Recall a certain bankruptcy case of one General Motors, where the claims of creditors were primed by those of the labor unions.

Granted, such a perversion of the bankruptcy process would be historic, but in a country in which everyone is to blame for everything, and in which property rights are becoming a very nebulous concept, we would certainly not be surprised if the US government ends up "bailing out" Hostess by a mandatory flipping the capital structure, over the cries of the company's creditors, further pushing the country into the twilight Banana zone.

tttppp
11-19-2012, 06:49 PM
Oh, I never said it was the best option. I'm just saying that's all we have to deal with right now, like it or not.

You are just exasserbating the problem. People like Obama get elected because of groups dependent on unions. More unions just makes the problem worse, just like any regulation does. The only positive I can see, if we let Obama just wreck the economy, we can then convince people of free market concepts and run the country the right way. But aside from that idea, we should be getting rid of forced unions.

torchbearer
11-19-2012, 06:51 PM
nationalize all industry to protect the unions/prolets against the evil capitalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!
workers of the world unite!!!!!!!

ghengis86
11-19-2012, 07:10 PM
nationalize all industry to protect the unions/prolets against the evil capitalist!!!!!!!!!!!!!
workers of the world unite!!!!!!!

This is a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

Dr.3D
11-19-2012, 07:13 PM
Pfff!
Unfounded accusation. I simply look at things realisitically. With this current controlled economy, is there any way to restore freedoms? No. So, when life deals you lemons, you make lemonade. Since we're stuck with demonrats, the only viable option to make a decent income is to spread unions. As I said in a previous post: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.
Just don't try to sell it. The government wants your profit before you even make any.

torchbearer
11-19-2012, 07:15 PM
This is a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?


we could repeat this communist cycle every 2 years, people's memories are so short, they'd never know.

ghengis86
11-19-2012, 07:18 PM
we could repeat this communist cycle every 2 years, people's memories are so short, they'd never know.

A bit longer though it seems to get shorter and shorter. The full cycle is 80 years give or take. Long enough for the first generation to due off and with them the first hand experience of the terrible times.

The Fourth Turning is upon us.

Henry Rogue
11-19-2012, 07:25 PM
In the long run unions hurt the least productive workers the same way minimum wages do. Unions cause more unemployment. As wages increase Producers must layoff the least productive workers to stay competitive.

torchbearer
11-19-2012, 07:30 PM
In the long run unions hurt the least productive workers the same way minimum wages do. Unions cause more unemployment. As wages increase Producers must layoff the least productive workers to stay competitive.

get this- union's are supposedly for the "worker", but in the end... because of what you stated above... the union's job becomes to protect just those workers that the company can afford to keep...
a company like P&G hires the bulk of its real workers from Temp agencies where the bulk of those then employed have no unemployment insurance or any other protections from loss of job. they are paid bottom rate because that is all the company can afford after over-paying button pushers. all to protect the salaries on the union worker. the union isn't crying about that.
this info is first hand knowledge, not speculation.

phill4paul
11-19-2012, 07:41 PM
get this- union's are supposedly for the "worker", but in the end... because of what you stated above... the union's job becomes to protect just those workers that the company can afford to keep...
a company like P&G hires the bulk of its real workers from Temp agencies where the bulk of those then employed have no unemployment insurance or any other protections from loss of job. they are paid bottom rate because that is all the company can afford after over-paying button pushers. all to protect the salaries on the union worker. the union isn't crying about that.
this info is first hand knowledge, not speculation.

sure. Unions have a vested interest in protecting "theirs." Everyone else be damned.

belian78
11-19-2012, 09:33 PM
get this- union's are supposedly for the "worker", but in the end... because of what you stated above... the union's job becomes to protect just those workers that the company can afford to keep...
a company like P&G hires the bulk of its real workers from Temp agencies where the bulk of those then employed have no unemployment insurance or any other protections from loss of job. they are paid bottom rate because that is all the company can afford after over-paying button pushers. all to protect the salaries on the union worker. the union isn't crying about that.
this info is first hand knowledge, not speculation.
I can attest to this as well here in central IL. If you don't sign up to get in line for the UAW, your only other option is picking one of the many temp agencies that help staff the plants that feed CAT their parts.

BAllen
11-19-2012, 09:54 PM
You are just exasserbating the problem. People like Obama get elected because of groups dependent on unions. More unions just makes the problem worse, just like any regulation does. The only positive I can see, if we let Obama just wreck the economy, we can then convince people of free market concepts and run the country the right way. But aside from that idea, we should be getting rid of forced unions.

That's another possibility. The system will break down, then people will look for other options. While we're stuck here, get all you can. Sign up for government money. Spread union information everywhere you can. Tell people they're being underpaid by these greedy corporations, and they need a union.
Bleed the Freak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy_n15tChA0

tttppp
11-19-2012, 11:09 PM
That's another possibility. The system will break down, then people will look for other options. While we're stuck here, get all you can. Sign up for government money. Spread union information everywhere you can. Tell people they're being underpaid by these greedy corporations, and they need a union.
Bleed the Freak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy_n15tChA0

If you can get government money for free, of course take it. On an individual level that is fine. But if everyone is getting benefit from the government, everything will collapse. As I stated that can be positive if people recognize the colapse is due to cummunism, not capitalism.

But on unions, they are there to serve the lazy and loyal, not the most productive people. They just aren't good for the economy.

BAllen
11-19-2012, 11:23 PM
If you can get government money for free, of course take it. On an individual level that is fine. But if everyone is getting benefit from the government, everything will collapse. As I stated that can be positive if people recognize the colapse is due to cummunism, not capitalism.

But on unions, they are there to serve the lazy and loyal, not the most productive people. They just aren't good for the economy.

Unions may not be the most productive, but for reasons stated, and due to the people in office, it is the best path to increase income in many fields. Under the current administration, there isn't any other option, is there? I'm just saying make the most of what's available, and it ain't freedom oriented businesses, is it? Not possible under current circumstances.

tttppp
11-19-2012, 11:58 PM
Unions may not be the most productive, but for reasons stated, and due to the people in office, it is the best path to increase income in many fields. Under the current administration, there isn't any other option, is there? I'm just saying make the most of what's available, and it ain't freedom oriented businesses, is it? Not possible under current circumstances.

You might as well ask for more welfare. That would be less harmful. Unions infringe on peoples rights to do business and therefore lower jobs and screw people over. Id rather pay higher taxes to support welfare than support more union rights.

BAllen
11-20-2012, 09:11 AM
You might as well ask for more welfare. That would be less harmful. Unions infringe on peoples rights to do business and therefore lower jobs and screw people over. Id rather pay higher taxes to support welfare than support more union rights.

You're missing the point. I'd rather have Romney or Paul in the WH, but that's not real, is it? We're stuck with these current politicans, right? So, why not make the most of it? We can sit around and worry about how it ought to be, or take advantage of what's here. And democraps favor unions, so join a union, or start one! Get your share of the pie that's available, while it's here.

tttppp
11-20-2012, 09:27 AM
You're missing the point. I'd rather have Romney or Paul in the WH, but that's not real, is it? We're stuck with these current politicans, right? So, why not make the most of it? We can sit around and worry about how it ought to be, or take advantage of what's here. And democraps favor unions, so join a union, or start one! Get your share of the pie that's available, while it's here.

You are missing my point. I don't need a union to move up in a company and a union would most likely get in the way of me moving up in a company. So why should I support them? So I can get some minimal raise I could have gotten and more by myself.

BAllen
11-20-2012, 09:30 AM
You are missing my point. I don't need a union to move up in a company and a union would most likely get in the way of me moving up in a company. So why should I support them? So I can get some minimal raise I could have gotten and more by myself.

You must be in management.

seraphson
11-20-2012, 10:59 AM
Pfff!
Unfounded accusation. I simply look at things realisitically. With this current controlled economy, is there any way to restore freedoms? No. So, when life deals you lemons, you make lemonade. Since we're stuck with demonrats, the only viable option to make a decent income is to spread unions. As I said in a previous post: if you have a better idea, let's hear it.

A better idea? Here's an idea:

Accept. The. Truth.

The truth you say? The truth that unions are nothing more than a last ditch effort at the grasping of straws...or life preservers...of the illusion that everything's swell in America. Our foreign policy, monetary policy, and other local policies have done virtually nothing in terms of aiding real capital investment and real growth, that is production, which is the true creator of jobs. Unions are a way of separating people, to keep some in at the expense of others. The expense being tolled on the unemployed and the employing.

But you say, without unions we'd have shit for pay! Well, lets tackle the "W" that requires critical thought. We already know the Who, the What, the Where, the When, but we like to silently sweep the WHY under the rug. WHY would we have bad pay if there wasn't unions? An answer to that would be because there's a line of people willing to replace you at a lesser pay and probably another person to replace that person at an even lesser pay. So instead of blaming the "greedy, fat, capitalist" (quoted due its commonality among people who make your argument) you should blame the market conditions NOT to be confused with the "free market", we'll get to that in a minute and why blaming it too is a fallacy. If we had a good productive economy there would be in general on average no worry of having a 10 mile line of people willing to replace you at ever cheaper wage rates. But we don't have a solid economy and that's were a lot of this fallacious anti-capitalism anti-free market spews forth from. (You didn't build that!;))

Our nation's DEFICIT, that is, the money spent after net "income" has been over $1 Trillion (that's with a "T") for the past four fiscal years. The Fed handled just over 3/4ths of last fiscal year's debt, that is, foreigners are fleeing from the dollar (relatively speaking since the patsies are flocking to it to get away from the euro, that is, going from one sinking ship to another). We've been hacking away with ZIRP, zero interest rate policy for what I believe to be nearly half a decade. We've spent trillions on "broken windows" in the middle east. We continue to assure and bailout these mega billion dollar "corporations" that are nothing more than an extension of fascist government control. No, giving Solyndra, Fannie/Freddie, and GM Billion/Millions in bailout money on behalf of everyone that doesn't ride a GM or use Solar products or made a sound housing purchase is NOT "free market capitalism". It's fascist corporatism. And it's all possible due to the central bank. The Fed. Oh, and let's not forget the $100 Trillion plus in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare/caid they made possible too.

So there you have it. You have a completely botched economy and utterly broke nation and because of that, as you've said, people are trying to put together a glass of lemonade with the little lemon rinds the central banks tosses at us. If we'd just accept the truth and finally face the real fiscal cliff, absolve our debt, promote savings, promote capital formation, promote sound money, fix the damn core of the issue itself the need for unions would simply vanish. As far as right here right now goes they're nothing more than a laughable attempt of Americans fooling themselves into participating in an era of real productivity that more less passed a century ago.

belian78
11-20-2012, 11:18 AM
You're missing the point. I'd rather have Romney or Paul in the WH, but that's not real, is it? We're stuck with these current politicans, right? So, why not make the most of it? We can sit around and worry about how it ought to be, or take advantage of what's here. And democraps favor unions, so join a union, or start one! Get your share of the pie that's available, while it's here.
Yes, don't work to change the things needed to correct our employment problems, compound them until everything collapses. yes, you are UWdude I believe. Kick rocks...

BAllen
11-20-2012, 12:22 PM
Yes, don't work to change the things needed to correct our employment problems, compound them until everything collapses. yes, you are UWdude I believe. Kick rocks...

Sigh.
I did my part and voted for Romney. Many of you voted for who you thought was best, Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
Now pay attention, this is important: THEY DID NOT WIN!! Like it or not, that's the way it is!
So, you can complain in futility, or you can do something. I choose to support the unions. You don't like unions, fine! Get someone better in office. OH, that's right, it didn't work, did it? Oh, well.

Zippyjuan
11-20-2012, 01:30 PM
Our nation's DEFICIT, that is, the money spent after net "income" has been over $1 Trillion (that's with a "T") for the past four fiscal years. The Fed handled just over 3/4ths of last fiscal year's debt, that is, foreigners are fleeing from the dollar (relatively speaking since the patsies are flocking to it to get away from the euro, that is, going from one sinking ship to another). We've been hacking away with ZIRP, zero interest rate policy for what I believe to be nearly a decade. We've spent trillions on "broken windows" in the middle east. We continue to assure and bailout these mega billion dollar "corporations" that are nothing more than an extension of fascist government control. No, giving Solyndra, Fannie/Freddie, and GM Billion/Millions in bailout money on behalf of everyone that doesn't ride a GM or use Solar products or made a sound housing purchase is NOT "free market capitalism". It's fascist corporatism. And it's all possible due to the central bank. The Fed. Oh, and let's not forget the $100 Trillion plus in unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare/caid they made possible too.

.

Just a couple of corrections. The zero interest policy has only been in effect since the crash in 2007/2008- not a decade yet but about four years. The Fed did not finance 3/4th of last year's debt because they have not been net purchasers of US debt since June 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-markets-fed-qe-idUSTRE75T0KW20110630 For them to have financed 3/4th of the debt for the year they need to have added $800 billion to their holdings- yet zero was added. They did roll over maturing securities- replacing old ones with new ones under Operation Twist.

You claimed that people are fleeing the dollar and then say that they are fleeing the Euro for the dollar. Seems to contradict each other.

The "unfunded libilities" on Social Security and Medicare assume you want to pay out all of the benefits everybody has currently qualified for over the next 50 years or more with only tax revenues collected this year so it is heavliy over-stated. Social Security and Medicare combined come to about $1 trillion a year in spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget- at that rate it would take us 100 years to spend $100 trillion on them at current expenditures.

seraphson
11-21-2012, 10:53 AM
Just a couple of corrections. The zero interest policy has only been in effect since the crash in 2007/2008- not a decade yet but about four years. The Fed did not finance 3/4th of last year's debt because they have not been net purchasers of US debt since June 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-markets-fed-qe-idUSTRE75T0KW20110630 For them to have financed 3/4th of the debt for the year they need to have added $800 billion to their holdings- yet zero was added. They did roll over maturing securities- replacing old ones with new ones under Operation Twist.

You claimed that people are fleeing the dollar and then say that they are fleeing the Euro for the dollar. Seems to contradict each other.

The "unfunded libilities" on Social Security and Medicare assume you want to pay out all of the benefits everybody has currently qualified for over the next 50 years or more with only tax revenues collected this year so it is heavliy over-stated. Social Security and Medicare combined come to about $1 trillion a year in spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget- at that rate it would take us 100 years to spend $100 trillion on them at current expenditures.

Overall thanks for the clarifications. I updated the ZIRP timespan but had a couple concerns about the other stuff.


The "unfunded libilities" on Social Security and Medicare assume you want to pay out all of the benefits everybody has currently qualified for over the next 50 years or more with only tax revenues collected this year so it is heavliy over-stated. Social Security and Medicare combined come to about $1 trillion a year in spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget- at that rate it would take us 100 years to spend $100 trillion on them at current expenditures.

I always thought the number was fishy but I think a couple points should be brought up. Does the "qualified" people account for the currently under-age but bulgy baby-boomer generation? Does it also include someone like me in their late 20s? I also don't think costs will decrease unless a nuclear holocaust occurs wiping out billions of collectors but I believe as time goes on costs will increase. I don't see how we can assume the tax revenue will increase to cover the future projection after the monetary crises occurs either. In the near future I predict a nasty hockey stick formation in that costs will increase, tax revenue will decrease (depression/recessions do this which will be inevitable), and the ratio of payees to collectors shrinks considerably.


You claimed that people are fleeing the dollar and then say that they are fleeing the Euro for the dollar. Seems to contradict each other.

I should have clarified that the smart investors are fleeing from the dollar and the less than smart investors are fleeing to the dollar from the euro.


The Fed did not finance 3/4th of last year's debt because they have not been net purchasers of US debt since June 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/30/us-markets-fed-qe-idUSTRE75T0KW20110630 For them to have financed 3/4th of the debt for the year they need to have added $800 billion to their holdings- yet zero was added. They did roll over maturing securities- replacing old ones with new ones under Operation Twist.

The data referred to in this post (http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/fed-bought-77-of-federal-debt-increase.html) shows something different.

tttppp
11-21-2012, 11:57 AM
You must be in management.

Not presently, but I was and will be again. The point I was making was that I started out at the bottom, got a chance, then was instantly promoted again because I was so good at my job. If this was a union company, the promotion would have gone to the girl who was trying to sabatoge the company, simply because she had seniority.

Lucille
11-21-2012, 12:01 PM
No thanks!

“Men enslave themselves, forging the chains link by link, usually by demanding protection as a group. When business men ask for government credit, they surrender control of their business. When labor asks for enforced ‘collective bargaining’ it has yielded its own freedom. When racial groups are recognized in law, they can be discriminated against by law.”
--Isabel Paterson

BAllen
11-21-2012, 01:06 PM
Not presently, but I was and will be again. The point I was making was that I started out at the bottom, got a chance, then was instantly promoted again because I was so good at my job. If this was a union company, the promotion would have gone to the girl who was trying to sabatoge the company, simply because she had seniority.

That may be true, but dems have control now. They will support unions over non unions.

tttppp
11-21-2012, 01:08 PM
That may be true, but dems have control now. They will support unions over non unions.

No shit. I think we figured out democrats like unions. We have two options. One would be to stop them. The other would be to let the democrats to whatever they want and watch them fall flat on their asses.

BAllen
11-21-2012, 01:14 PM
No shit. I think we figured out democrats like unions. We have two options. One would be to stop them. The other would be to let the democrats to whatever they want and watch them fall flat on their asses.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar! You're right. We have to tear the system down.

tttppp
11-21-2012, 01:54 PM
Bingo! Give the man a cigar! You're right. We have to tear the system down.

The only problem is, with our complex government (legislative branches, state, and local), the democrats can blame their problems on everyone. Let Obama be dictator and destroy the country, then lets have Ron Paul be dictator and get things back on track.