Hostess: Union stupidity in full view

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#61 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not about Twinkies; it's about adding 18,000 more people to the unemployment rolls.
But they did it to themselves!
You dont' have to blame the twinkies!

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#62 Nov 19, 2012
It's called a breather... IQ
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#63 Nov 19, 2012
QuiteCrazy wrote:
It's called a breather... IQ
I'd say we should come up with a "Save the Twinkies!" T-shirt, but it would probably be confused with the gay rights movement.
JJJ

Princeton Junction, NJ

#64 Nov 19, 2012
This thread is a pretty good example of what's wrong with American politics.

Hostess had a lot of bad things going for it:

- Bad products that haven't kept up with demand or a changing American diet trends.
- Bad management who paid themselves big bonuses despite the company teetering on collapse.
- Multiple bankruptcies.
- Ultimatum delivered to union (either work for 27%-32% wages and benefit cuts or the company is done).
- Union strike.

The company had nothing going for it, and everyone - from both sides - is using the shutdown as a way to prove that their political stance is the correct one.

The company failed on just about every metric, not just the one that proves your point. Grow up.
JJJ

Princeton Junction, NJ

#65 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
At one time, making out well was something to be admired in this country. Now, it's all about getting their stuff.
Well, "making out pretty well" means "doing well for themselves," but also "is contributing less financially to society than they are taking in."

The top 10% owns more in this country (in percent) than they contribute (in percent). It's not about "getting their stuff."
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

#66 Nov 19, 2012
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, "making out pretty well" means "doing well for themselves," but also "is contributing less financially to society than they are taking in."
The top 10% owns more in this country (in percent) than they contribute (in percent). It's not about "getting their stuff."
On what do you base your claim that the top 10% owns more than they contribute? How do you measure that? How many jobs do poor people create, other than govt jobs? Why should anyone contribute MORE financially to society than they take in? Where would the incentive to create, innovate, and prosper come from if everything went back to the state. That's why technological progress, work ethic, and customer service in Socialist and Communist states does not exist. The profit motive is what drives a successful country.

There has been and always will be "haves and have nots." Only the opportunity is equal. Life isn't fair and whining about people who have more than you is counter-productive. You have no right to more and more of their money, any more than I have the right to pick your pocket. The people at the top who didn't inherit their wealth went to college or learned a trade or just worked harder than other folks. They EARNED it. It's there for those willing to set a goal and work for it. IF YOU WANT IT, GO OUT AND GET YOU SOME. Don't come after mine.

"...the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay more in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.

"...these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. The National Tax Foundation explains:


"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
smiley

Saint Clair, PA

#67 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
The brands will be sold and your Ding Dongs will be made in Mexico by workers thrilled to make half of what the Hostess workers were being paid. I guess the "patriotic" Union isn't that patriotic when they are willing to destroy an American company and good jobs for its members to hold onto power. Good luck to them finding better paying jobs in Obama's economy.
So I guess the workers should accept wages comparable to the mexicans?
Why sure according to the greedy corp.
Far too many employees have been working for pnuts since, ahhh Good old Regan! look how many folks have slid down the ladder, plenty!
Thats why 1 paycheck cant keep a family today!
Let hostess go to mexico and the market will respond by not buying their polluted crap products.
I havent bought a hershey product since they moved to mexico!
Anything that goes into my stomach or on my body except for clothing must be made in the USA, or I pass on it!
smiley

Saint Clair, PA

#68 Nov 19, 2012
Hostess is crap anyhow, little miss debbie will pickup their customers..
and personally I dont eat much of that garbage but If i did i prefer ms debbie...
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#69 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
You know the electoral vote is heavily weighted toward Liberal states and the popular vote is a better indicator of what the people in the country as a whole think of a candidate. Half of the country voted for Romney, hardly a "crushing" defeat when you look at it in those terms. There was no mandate approving his policies or his performance.
Did somebody actually get a Romney/Ryan tattoo on his face?
try

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/201...

you might want to give him points for supporting the team but it was a dumb thing to do.
as to the popular vote romney lost that as well.
i did not state that romney got a crushing defeat in the popular vote,i said electoral.
from the electoral view he got flattened as it was not even close.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#70 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say we should come up with a "Save the Twinkies!" T-shirt, but it would probably be confused with the gay rights movement.
try

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-defi...

seems to be several ways to use the word "twinkie"
from there a saying i never came across.

@#@# a cold purple Twinkie ==to react with extreme or irrational distress or composure; FREAK OUT, HAVE A FIT.
contractor here

Perkasie, PA

#71 Nov 19, 2012
I didn't know they owned the Drakes snacks! Devil dogs and coffee cakes are REALLY good that sucks! They could stay afloat if they knocked off the hostess side and kept the Drakes stuff. Devil dogs sell really well I hardly ever see Twinkies selling. Hohos and dingdongs are just ripoffs of Yodels.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#72 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
On what do you base your claim that the top 10% owns more than they contribute? How do you measure that? How many jobs do poor people create, other than govt jobs? Why should anyone contribute MORE financially to society than they take in? Where would the incentive to create, innovate, and prosper come from if everything went back to the state. That's why technological progress, work ethic, and customer service in Socialist and Communist states does not exist. The profit motive is what drives a successful country.
There has been and always will be "haves and have nots." Only the opportunity is equal. Life isn't fair and whining about people who have more than you is counter-productive. You have no right to more and more of their money, any more than I have the right to pick your pocket. The people at the top who didn't inherit their wealth went to college or learned a trade or just worked harder than other folks. They EARNED it. It's there for those willing to set a goal and work for it. IF YOU WANT IT, GO OUT AND GET YOU SOME. Don't come after mine.
"...the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay more in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.
"...these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. The National Tax Foundation explains:
"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
and the tables only reflect taxable income.
warren buffett only earns money from his salary?
dividends,capital gains,etc is missing from the total share of wealth.
it also excludes all the other taxes that are paid.
for example ,property taxes,sales taxes,state taxes etc
when those are included the percentage of taxes paid by the top decile
falls far below the numbers your book cites.

it all depends on what taxes you decide to include.
BTW those people that inherit the "idle rich" to use a term are they takers from society?
JJJ

Emmaus, PA

#73 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
On what do you base your claim that the top 10% owns more than they contribute? How do you measure that? How many jobs do poor people create, other than govt jobs? Why should anyone contribute MORE financially to society than they take in? Where would the incentive to create, innovate, and prosper come from if everything went back to the state. That's why technological progress, work ethic, and customer service in Socialist and Communist states does not exist. The profit motive is what drives a successful country.
There has been and always will be "haves and have nots." Only the opportunity is equal. Life isn't fair and whining about people who have more than you is counter-productive. You have no right to more and more of their money, any more than I have the right to pick your pocket. The people at the top who didn't inherit their wealth went to college or learned a trade or just worked harder than other folks. They EARNED it. It's there for those willing to set a goal and work for it. IF YOU WANT IT, GO OUT AND GET YOU SOME. Don't come after mine.
"...the top ten percent of income earners in the United States pay more in federal income taxes as opposed to any other industrialized nation in the world.
"...these earners pay almost half (45 percent) of the country's total taxes. This conclusion flies in the face of the liberal concept that top earners in the U.S. are not paying their "fair share" in taxes. The National Tax Foundation explains:
"The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the more socialized economies of Europe. According to the Tax Foundation, the United States gets 45 percent of its total taxes from the top 10 percent of tax filers, whereas the international average in industrialized nations is 32 percent. America’s rich carry a larger share of the tax burden than do the rich in Belgium (25 percent), Germany (31 percent), France (28 percent), and even Sweden (27 percent)."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercool...
The question though, isn't how much they pay in dollars, but how much they pay compared to how much they take in. Are you saying that the only incentive to become rich is that you can take advantage of the middle class to pick up the slack when it comes to paying the taxes you're skirting?
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#74 Nov 19, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>So I guess the workers should accept wages comparable to the mexicans?
Why sure according to the greedy corp.
Far too many employees have been working for pnuts since, ahhh Good old Regan! look how many folks have slid down the ladder, plenty!
Thats why 1 paycheck cant keep a family today!
Let hostess go to mexico and the market will respond by not buying their polluted crap products.
I havent bought a hershey product since they moved to mexico!
Anything that goes into my stomach or on my body except for clothing must be made in the USA, or I pass on it!
Didn't say that. Guaranteed the Mexican workers won't make $29-49K + benefits to start, even factoring in the concessions. But I'm not defending management. Now that I'm aware of the dirty dealings, I sympathize with the employees. I just question the wisdom of the union leadership.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#75 Nov 19, 2012
smiley wrote:
Hostess is crap anyhow, little miss debbie will pickup their customers..
and personally I dont eat much of that garbage but If i did i prefer ms debbie...
All of their products are crap, from Wonder Bread to Donettes and HoHos. Refined white flour, sugar and lard. But no different from any of the similar products. But at least they employed 18,000 Americans. Hopefully, the negotiations will be successful.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#76 Nov 19, 2012
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>try

http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/201...

you might want to give him points for supporting the team but it was a dumb thing to do.
as to the popular vote romney lost that as well.
i did not state that romney got a crushing defeat in the popular vote,i said electoral.
from the electoral view he got flattened as it was not even close.
How unbelievably stupid. People never cease to sink below my expectations.

The popular vote was very close. The electoral vote decides the election based on the number of delegates per state. It doesn't give Obama a mandate by any means. It gives him another 4 years, not a stamp of approval from the country as a whole. You know that.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#77 Nov 19, 2012
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>try

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-defi...

seems to be several ways to use the word "twinkie"
from there a saying i never came across.

@#@# a cold purple Twinkie ==to react with extreme or irrational distress or composure; FREAK OUT, HAVE A FIT.
Interesting. I am SO out of touch with today's slang and music, it's not even funny.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#78 Nov 19, 2012
dbar wrote:
<quoted text>and the tables only reflect taxable income.
warren buffett only earns money from his salary?
dividends,capital gains,etc is missing from the total share of wealth.
it also excludes all the other taxes that are paid.
for example ,property taxes,sales taxes,state taxes etc
when those are included the percentage of taxes paid by the top decile
falls far below the numbers your book cites.

it all depends on what taxes you decide to include.
BTW those people that inherit the "idle rich" to use a term are they takers from society?
This is where the smoke and mirrors come from. The "talking points" are about those rare people who live off dividend income, ignoring the fact that 98% of people and small businesses affected by ending the tax cuts pay A LOT of taxes. You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and only collect about $150 billion, most of that would be from a handful of people. How does that stack up to $16 trillion dollars? How does going down to $250,000 help? IT DOES NOTHING but hurt businesses. Many are already announcing layoffs in anticipation of Obamacare and the fiscal cliff.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

#79 Nov 19, 2012
JJJ wrote:
<quoted text>The question though, isn't how much they pay in dollars, but how much they pay compared to how much they take in. Are you saying that the only incentive to become rich is that you can take advantage of the middle class to pick up the slack when it comes to paying the taxes you're skirting?
How much do the lower 20-30% who pay NO federal income taxes contribute? The middle class doesn't take up the slack from the rich, it takes up the slack from the poor.

Anybody who "skirts" taxes through fraud is a crook and subject to prosecution. A person or company who minimizes tax liability legally is not. I would much rather have someone like Romney paying 15% to the govt in federal taxes, which amounts to millions of dollars and then have him give millions more to charity than increasing his tax rate to 25% and giving it to a wasteful and unaccountable govt.

How much a person "takes in" is not the govt's business if it's earned legally and taxed accordingly. Sooner or later, you run out of other peoples' money. They need to get their own fiscal house in order before demanding more money from people who are already being taxed at high rates and "picking up the slack" for the people who pay no federal taxes at all.
dbar

Perkasie, PA

#80 Nov 19, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
This is where the smoke and mirrors come from. The "talking points" are about those rare people who live off dividend income, ignoring the fact that 98% of people and small businesses affected by ending the tax cuts pay A LOT of taxes. You could confiscate 100% of the wealth of the top 1% and only collect about $150 billion, most of that would be from a handful of people. How does that stack up to $16 trillion dollars? How does going down to $250,000 help? IT DOES NOTHING but hurt businesses. Many are already announcing layoffs in anticipation of Obamacare and the fiscal cliff.
concerning Obamacares
papa john's CEO can have his company give away one million pizzas but adding 14 or less cents to the cost of a pizza is going to destroy his business to have healthcare for the workers.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Quakertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Richland Meadows (May '09) 9 hr Jennifer 29
Tim Arnold Richland Township supervisor Fri UMadBro 16
TVES Principal Apr 28 Welcome to 2016 6
Wegmans rumor Apr 28 MeHawsome 13
A store they really need in Quakertown...Harbor... (Mar '10) Apr 28 Resident 12
Ark of the Covenant in Bucks County? (Feb '13) Apr 27 Sol Silver 11
News Horror Story Reported by Patient of Local Quake... (Feb '08) Apr 25 Tired of it all 137
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Quakertown Mortgages