Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go ou...

Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business

There are 1622 comments on the Reuters story from Nov 16, 2012, titled Twinkies maker Hostess plans to go out of business. In it, Reuters reports that:

As President Barack Obama and congressional leaders prepared for budget and tax talks on Friday aimed at preventing the economy from falling back into recession, a top Republican vowed to overhaul the U.S. tax code next year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#942 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
The CEO's salary didn't bankrupt the company. In fact the workers got a vote on if to keep the company open. They voted to lose their jobs. Is the CEO hurting? Nope. Are the workers hurting? Yep.
lol! You have no idea how you just walked into your own stupid trap.

Think of the automakers going to Congress in their private jets to 'beg' for money and you might begin to understand!
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#943 Nov 27, 2012
For Real wrote:
<quoted text>
blah blah blah WHO CARES. Your self perceived intellect isn't working for you and it's worthless to anyone else who has the misfortune of seeing it.
And you still haven't made a single contribution to the actual topic of this thread. Nada. You're a troll... and an ignorant one at that. Good day :)
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#944 Nov 27, 2012
the rest of us wrote:
<quoted text>
Arrogant flatulence like yours is more disgusting than regular flatulence.


Wow... you used "flatulence" twice in a single sentence. Impressive! Your limited intellect betrays itself more and more as this discussion progresses. Why don't you go read a comic book or something? At least THEY have pictures, so you won't have to think too much. You don't wanna get a headache :)

“Registered Conservative”

Since: Jul 11

Naples,FL

#945 Nov 27, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You have no idea how you just walked into your own stupid trap.
Think of the automakers going to Congress in their private jets to 'beg' for money and you might begin to understand!
Did they get the money?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#946 Nov 27, 2012
General Robert E Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Did they get the money?
lol! For their business? Yes.

Unlike Hostess...

"U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers
November 19, 2012|Reuters

Hostess Brands Inc., the maker of the iconic Twinkies snack cake, will square off in a bankruptcy court on Monday against an agent of the U.S. Justice Department, who says the wind-down plan is too generous to management.

The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders."
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#947 Nov 27, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You have no idea how you just walked into your own stupid trap.

Think of the automakers going to Congress in their private jets to 'beg' for money and you might begin to understand!
you are right I don't understand the twisted logic of a liberal. No human does. The workers voted themselves out of a job. It was in their hands. The company would still be open of they had agreed to the pay cuts. They didn't so they now will eat at the hands of obammy stamps.
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#948 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
you are right I don't understand the twisted logic of a liberal. No human does. The workers voted themselves out of a job. It was in their hands. The company would still be open of they had agreed to the pay cuts. They didn't so they now will eat at the hands of obammy stamps.
lol! You have to be an actual human first, son.

Cons believe they're closer to God. Personally, I think it's an admirable goal but.........
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#949 Nov 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know. I'm 52 years old and have never had a check direct deposited. Sure, they offer the option, that that's all it is--an option.
Here in Cleveland, we were an immigrant city. Europeans never dealt with banks. If they wanted something, they saved for it. They didn't believe in borrowing money. Some spent their entire lives renting while others were able to save the thousands of dollars it took to purchase a house.
As the other poster noted, you still have an option as to what bank you wish to use. Unlike unions and taxation, you can't take your money somewhere else if you don't like what they do with your money.
You're right... you DO have the choice which bank you take your money to; but they all operate essentially the same way. They are an abstract financial siphoning mechanism. Some are of course worse or better than others. Credit Unions are obviously the least guilty of the lot. So you get to choose WHO is going to siphon off your money. That sounds like freedom to me! You further illustrated my point... if you are going to do ANYTHING in this society beside work for cash, pay cash for everything and resign yourself to never purchasing a house; sure... you can live without a bank. But if you plan on living in this thing called THE REAL WORLD, you have no choice but to let them siphon off you. My issue is that between the bailouts and the bad loans they made a killing on the '08 crash and continue to make piles of money for doing essentially nothing.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#950 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
The CEO's salary didn't bankrupt the company. In fact the workers got a vote on if to keep the company open. They voted to lose their jobs. Is the CEO hurting? Nope. Are the workers hurting? Yep.
Really? I guess I missed the story about the workers voting to keep the company open or not. That must have been an awkward meeting. I didn't even know workers were given that sort of choice. How does that work? What does the ballot say... "Should we close our doors" or is it "would you like to lose your job"? I'm very curious.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#951 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
you are right I don't understand the twisted logic of a liberal. No human does. The workers voted themselves out of a job. It was in their hands. The company would still be open of they had agreed to the pay cuts. They didn't so they now will eat at the hands of obammy stamps.
The workers agreed to pay cuts on at least two occasions prior to the company's demise. The management got huge pay RAISES. I suppose the workers should have sacrificed even MORE right? We wouldn't want to cut into managements raises, would we?
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#952 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Really? I guess I missed the story about the workers voting to keep the company open or not. That must have been an awkward meeting. I didn't even know workers were given that sort of choice. How does that work? What does the ballot say... "Should we close our doors" or is it "would you like to lose your job"? I'm very curious.
it says take a pay cut or the business will close nitwit
McGruff

Leitchfield, KY

#953 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>The workers agreed to pay cuts on at least two occasions prior to the company's demise. The management got huge pay RAISES. I suppose the workers should have sacrificed even MORE right? We wouldn't want to cut into managements raises, would we?
yes if they wanted a job. They sacrificed 100% now. They now have nothing. Zero. Is that better?
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#954 Nov 27, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! For their business? Yes.
Unlike Hostess...
"U.S.: Hostess liquidation bonuses too sweet for managers
November 19, 2012|Reuters
Hostess Brands Inc., the maker of the iconic Twinkies snack cake, will square off in a bankruptcy court on Monday against an agent of the U.S. Justice Department, who says the wind-down plan is too generous to management.
The U.S. Trustee, an agent of the U.S. Department of Justice who oversees bankruptcy cases, said in court documents it is opposed to the wind-down plan because Hostess plans improper bonuses to company insiders."
Of course the wind down plan is generous to management. After all... they worked REALLY hard. They deserve their golden parachute! Besides... isn't that what ALWAYS happens in this situation? That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, isn't it?
Yeah

Honolulu, HI

#955 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the wind down plan is generous to management. After all... they worked REALLY hard. They deserve their golden parachute! Besides... isn't that what ALWAYS happens in this situation? That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be done, isn't it?
lol! Romney would attest to that!

It's a fine example of his idea of "job growth" and "increased employment!"
no job

Stambaugh, KY

#956 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The workers agreed to pay cuts on at least two occasions prior to the company's demise. The management got huge pay RAISES. I suppose the workers should have sacrificed even MORE right? We wouldn't want to cut into managements raises, would we?
ASK these people in a year from now and i'll bet they would vote pay cut.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#957 Nov 27, 2012
no job wrote:
<quoted text>ASK these people in a year from now and i'll bet they would vote pay cut.
I wonder if management would have agreed to a pay cut for themselves. I think not, considering they got only pay RAISES throughout the whole thing. But we shouldn't expect THEM to make any sacrifices, should we?
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#958 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
it says take a pay cut or the business will close nitwit
Really? Was management given that option as well? If so, it would seem to me they must have voted to close the doors.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#959 Nov 27, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
yes if they wanted a job. They sacrificed 100% now. They now have nothing. Zero. Is that better?
As did management.
no job

Stambaugh, KY

#960 Nov 27, 2012
Some Random Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder if management would have agreed to a pay cut for themselves. I think not, considering they got only pay RAISES throughout the whole thing. But we shouldn't expect THEM to make any sacrifices, should we?
Worker's are what we are talking about,THEY CAN BE REPLACED AND THE CEO'S WILL MAKE MORE MONEY IN ANOTHER STATE WITH OUT UNION'S OR ANOTHER COUNTRY,BUT THE WORKER'S WILL BE OUT.
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

#961 Nov 27, 2012
no job wrote:
<quoted text>Worker's are what we are talking about,THEY CAN BE REPLACED AND THE CEO'S WILL MAKE MORE MONEY IN ANOTHER STATE WITH OUT UNION'S OR ANOTHER COUNTRY,BUT THE WORKER'S WILL BE OUT.
I thought the debate was over who was responsible for the collapse of Hostess. I didn't realize it was actually a "how the workers ruined Hostess" commentary. My bad. Now I'm up caught up.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 min SpaceBlues 54,556
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Yeah 1,277,267
News Biden to test political waters in Florida as he... 8 min Go Blue Forever 4
News We have reached the George Wallace stage of the... 9 min George Wallace 5
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min HILLARY 2016 193,984
News Trump Plan to Deport 11 Million Immigrants Sell... 15 min swedenforever 4
News GOP establishment plans Trump takedown 15 min Synque 154
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 17 min Coffee Party 341,283
News 'Anchor baby' fight scrambles Republican field 51 min Dale 401
More from around the web