So do you think that the “Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union” is regretting their unwillingness to follow the Teamsters Union’s directive of taking an 8% contract cut to save jobs?
In case you didn’t hear Hostess Brands (makers of Twinkies, Wonderbread, and so many other yummy treats), who filed bankruptcy earlier in the year and has been trying to find a way to stay in business, decided to close shop today for good after talks with the Baker’s union fell through and they decided to strike. Management decided that they couldn’t afford to continue the fight along with their other financial problems and so they announced today that they have decided to shut down all production nationwide and close up shop for good!!! 18,500 people are not out of work because the representatives for 5,000 of them weren’t willing to make the adjustments needed to keep people employed!
A quote in the article states that: “Unfortunately, the company’s operating and financial problems were so severe that it required steep concessions from a variety of stakeholders but not all stakeholders were willing to be constructive,” said Ken Hall, the Teamsters’ Secretary-Treasurer. “Teamster Hostess members, based on the facts and advice from respected restructuring advisers understood what was at stake and voted to protect all jobs at Hostess.”
The Baker’s Union says it isn’t their fault as Hostess was already having money problems, but if you know that and you decide you’re not willing to work with management to try and save jobs that are there and go on strike adding to the monetary issues during a time of crisis, aren’t you just as guilty for those job losses as the management is?
OK, somebody PLEASE help me with this logic…
There is an article on CNBC today (http://www.cnbc.com/id/48782861) about the drought and it’s effect on corn farmers.
According to the article corn farmers are better off with the drought because:
1.The U.S. Department of Agriculture said despite the drought, it predicts net farm income will rise 3.7 percent this year to over $122 billion, as high grain prices offset loss of production. (so because of the low yield of corn to sell they can sell at a higher price, so farmers will make out ok – but consumers get stuck with the higher costs.)
2. Most grain and oil seed farmers have taxpayer subsidized crop insurance (yes, you read that right, TAX PAYER subsidized crop insurance) which will cover, on average, 70-80 percent of their loss of “average production.” And because of this, the article states that “some farmers will make more money this year having crop insurance than they would have if there was a normal yield because we planted so many corn acres”. (So if I understand that correctly some farmers planted extra crops in case of drought so when they lose those crops they can claim them as part of a total loss of expected income and insurance companies pay them for what they MIGHT HAVE SOLD if the crops had survived and then get money from the government to off-set what they had to pay out!!!)
So under option 1 the consumer gets screwed and under option 2 the tax payer gets screwed because they are forced to subsidize insurance companies that set up some deal with the government. So the Insurance Agencies (the article mentions: Endurance Specialty Holdings, American Financial Group and Ace Limited) collect the premiums, but then when they have to pay out on those claims, they come to the government and the U.S. Taxpayers cover a portion of their losses?!? WTF?!?!
With a national debt at around $16 Trillion, why the hell are we bailing out Insurance Companies, without even getting a say it in?
This Kind of Irresponsible Reporting INFURIATES Me – I’ve been reflecting on the shooting this morning and trying to learn more about it. Imagine my surprise (and honestly DISGUST) when I came across the following.
Here we are still trying to gain an understanding of the tragedy that befell Aurora, Colorado, last night and cost 12 people their lives and changed the lives of 50 other movie-goers, their families and communities probably forever, and ABC News decides to make it political with no proof.
ABC News Reporter, Brian Ross, on “Good Morning America”, before all facts were in, or statements from the police, or anything proven, decided to announce on the air and over twitter that “There is a Jim Holmes, of Aurora Co., page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”
REALLY?!? WTF?!? Because there is a Jim Holmes from Aurora, CO, in the CO Tea Party and the shooter’s name is “James Holms” they MUST be the same guy, right? To state outright that “we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes, but it is Jim Holmes of Aurora, CO” is ridiculous! No proof, just similar names, so let’s get our political agenda out there! Is this really what they are calling reporting today?
As shown in the source article below, they found 208 (!) people named “James Holmes” in and around the Aurora/Denver area, so OF COURSE the shooter and the Tea Party member HAD to be the same guy!
The ABC News web site later retracted the statement stating “Editor’s Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.”
BUT one of the things that burns my butt is that the accusation went out on national TV and via twitter, but the retraction appears to have been posted only to their website. (Note I’m taking the articles word for this as I didn’t see any retraction on Twitter from them, but I may have missed it.)
I am sorry but this is shoddy “reporting” at the least and to use this tragedy before all the facts are even known to push personal agendas (why else even bring up the Tea Party, they were not part of the story at all until he made them part of the story) is outrageous to me.
Can we please just put away the politics for a while and concentrate on figuring out how to help those who were hurt and the families of those who were killed? Is that really too much to ask?
2012 WTF #28 – So what do you do when the United States Supreme Court issues a ruling you don’t agree with? If you are the Dept of Homeland Security, it looks like you issue directives to your agents to IGNORE the ruling!
In case you didn’t hear, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Arizona immigration law today, and ruled that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police COULD check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
I guess that DHS didn’t like this because DHS officials stated today that it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
What does this mean? In a nutshell, the Supreme Court upheld that Arizona police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status on suspected illegals, BUT, thanks to today’s directive from Homeland Security, federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials went on to say that they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but WILL ONLY RESPOND WHEN someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
So if you don’t commit a crime, you’re welcome here if you are an illegal… wait a minute, isn’t coming across the border illegally a crime in itself? Why yes, I believe it is…. Hmmm… Ahh, but it’s not a felony – and even if it was, if they haven’t been CONVICTED yet of that felony, then it doesn’t count! GOTCHA!
Have you seen President Obama’s new “The Road We’ve Traveled” video? (aka “Why I’m the Greatest President Ever…”) In it Tom Hanks (yes, THAT Tom Hanks) says:
“Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt had so much fallen on the shoulders of one president. Now when he faced his country who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame or dream in idealism.”
And he says it with all sincerity too!
WHAT THE @#%&?!? How many times have we heard Mr. Obama say “I inherited…” or “Bush’s fault…” or some variance of those statements in the last three years? TOO MANY TO COUNT to my thinking! But “he would not dwell in blame” – BULL$HIT! DON’T LIE TO US! If we like you and what you’ve done, we’ll vote for you; if we don’t, we won’t! Simple as that… BUT QUIT BULL$HITTING US! WE DESERVE BETTER FROM YOU AS OUR LEADER!
And even though Hanks says it, Obama’s re-election campaign is behind this thing and happily gloss over all the bad stuff while high-lighting the stuff their proud of.
Why isn’t there ANYBODY running for president this year I can get behind and honestly support whole heartedly?
WE DESERVE BETTER DAMN IT!!!
“The Road We’ve Traveled” video:
2012 WTF #20 – Hmmm – Is it just me or does this seem suspicious to anyone else? The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday declared its opposition to new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification (just like they did with S. Carolina’s similar law last year.)
In a letter to Texas officials the Justice Department said Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID. The department said that even the lowest estimates showed about half of Hispanic registered voters lack such identification.
Uhm, excuse me, OK, so then how do they buy a beer? Maybe they don’t drink! OK, so how do they cash their paychecks then? But Kurt, maybe they use direct deposit! How do they open a banking account then? But Kurt, maybe they don’t have jobs so they don’t need a bank account! OK then how do they get money? Well Kurt, maybe they get state assistance while they’re trying to find a job!
OK, but then that is where this gets really interesting. To apply for Federal Welfare, all applicants are given a list of REQUIRED documents to bring to sign up including: “proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency” (see “How to Apply for a Welfare Program” section, http://www.welfareinfo.org/)
SO… you shouldn’t need an ID to prove you are who you say you are when voting in elections, but you damn well better have ID proving you are who you say you are to get government assistance? Where is the outrage! These people need help! They shouldn’t have to prove that they are who they say they are or even that they need help! Just give them the money already! SHEESH!
Our government is sooo ridiculous sometimes it’s almost funny. ALMOST!
Oh and in case you didn’t hear, James O’Keefe, who “screwed” over ACORN, just released a video from Vermont and New Hampshire showing one of his employees going into multiple voting areas, giving a different name each time and being handed the REPUBLICAN primary ballot without ever being asked for ID (note: he went for the Republican to show this problem is NOT a partisan issue, but can be exploited by anyone with the desire to.)
James O’Keefe Video
2012 WTF #19 – These people make me sick! A couple in Portland, OR, was awarded almost $3 million in a “wrongful birth” lawsuit after their daughter was born with Down syndrome although a prenatal test didn’t show Down syndrome as a possibility. I know we’ve become such a litigious society, but come on! No test is perfect and to say you would have aborted it if you’d only known is sickening.
And the lawyer, in the same interview, saying don’t misunderstand they love this child, but they would have aborted her if they’d known and they are only suing because it’s too expensive to raise a special needs child and it’s the hospitals fault after all they are in this mess.
Did the hospital make a mistake? Yep, it looks that way. Do they deserve financial help raising the kid (beyond the normal help the government offers for children with special needs)? Probably. But is that an excuse for saying publicly that although they “love” this child they would have preferred to abort it? No, not in my eyes.
I feel sooooo bad for this child. There are sooooo many good homes in this world looking for children that would have happily taken and raised this little girl, but no, the parent decided to keep her and now feel it is too expensive to have her. The saddest part to me is that at 4 this little girl doesn’t get it, but she’s got siblings and they all get to grow up now knowing that their parents would have gladly killed her had they only known!!! Despicable!!!