[TheRealVille]

Look at how the Wall Street bankers make fun of the protesters, by drinking champagne as they walk by.



[YOUTUBE="Wall Street"]vAWv9gV8Cxo[/YOUTUBE]

[Truth]

It would be interesting to know how many of these "demonstrators" pay any income tax whatsoever? They aren't the "99%". They are the non-contributing 52%. They may stay there for months leaving only long enough to pick up various and sundry welfare payments. After all, they don't likely have jobs.

[Bob Seger]

Look at how the Wall Street bankers make fun of the protesters, by drinking champagne as they walk by.



[YOUTUBE="Wall Street"]vAWv9gV8Cxo[/YOUTUBE]

lol!!!!

What better way is there to respond to a bunch of nut cases that dont even know what they are protesting to begin with..


By the way RV, are you intentionally ignoring the requests I asked of you?

[Bob Seger]

It would be interesting to know how many of these "demonstrators" pay any income tax whatsoever? They aren't the "99%". They are the non-contributing 52%. They may stay there for months leaving only long enough to pick up various and sundry welfare payments. After all, they don't likely have jobs.

A lot of them dont have jobs because they dont have to have them. Their daddy's are probably just as rich as the ones they are protesting.

[Hoot Gibson]

Look at how the Wall Street bankers make fun of the protesters, by drinking champagne as they walk by.



[YOUTUBE="Wall Street"]vAWv9gV8Cxo[/YOUTUBE]

Oh, the nerve of those evil Wall Street workers! Enjoying drinks on a balcony overlooking Wall Street! What evil monsters they must be. I'll bet that guy in the middle even speaks with a high falutin' British accent like Stuart Varney of the Fox News Channel. That is probably FNC's balcony.

[Panther Thunder]

Look at how the Wall Street bankers make fun of the protesters, by drinking champagne as they walk by.



[YOUTUBE="Wall Street"]vAWv9gV8Cxo[/YOUTUBE]

Lol. What do you want them to do? If a bunch of morons were doing that to me, I'd be popping bottles like we just won the world series, goggles and all.

[TheRealVille]

lol!!!!

What better way is there to respond to a bunch of nut cases that dont even know what they are protesting to begin with..


By the way RV, are you intentionally ignoring the requests I asked of you?

What requests?

[Bob Seger]

What requests?

The questions I asked last night in this thread.

[TheRealVille]

You just can't fathom in your little mind, that those entities are big businesses can you? All they want from you is your dues. Aint you smart enough to do your own negotiating RV, or do you feel uncapable for speaking for yourself and just letting your job performance speak for itsself? That's usually a sign of a worthless worker that needs protection for whatever reason it may be.


By the way, how about answering my previous question.

We do our own negotiating, via ballots, at contract time. We vote for our own negotiations at our very local level. I don't need any protection, my performance covers me very well. I would rather work for a union that get's us about 30 bucks an hour/ plus healthcare and retirement, as opposed to working nonunion for about 20 bucks an hour, plus a small 401k package. Not to mention the safety aspect of working for union contractors. Union contractors are notoriously safer to work for on construction sites. Why, you ask? Because nonunion workers are afraid to speak up when it comes to safety, because they are afraid the contractor will just get rid of them. You tell me why I wouldn't want to work union? Unions are just about 10% of the workforce, why do we scare you people so bad since we are so small?

[TheRealVille]

The questions I asked last night in this thread.

I didn't see them, refresh my memory.

[Bob Seger]

We do our own negotiating, via ballots, at contract time. We vote for our own negotiations at our very local level. I don't need any protection, my performance covers me very well. I would rather work for a union that get's us about 30 bucks an hour/ plus healthcare and retirement, as opposed to working nonunion for about 20 bucks an hour, plus a small 401k package. Not to mention the safety aspect of working for union contractors. Union contractors are notoriously safer to work for on construction sites. Why, you ask? Because nonunion workers are afraid to speak up when it comes to safety, because they are afraid the contractor will just get rid of them. You tell me why I wouldn't want to work union?

I would just think that a guy that is as qualified with the impeccable work ethic and performance level that you state, would be creating his own destiny rather than having to rely on someone else that you have to pay huge sums of money to represent your interests. I would think that someone as yourself would be ramrodding his own company.

[TheRealVille]

I would just think that a guy that is as qualified with the impeccable work ethic and performance level that you state, would be creating his own destiny rather than having to rely on someone else that you have to pay huge sums of money to represent your interests. I would think that someone as yourself would be ramrodding his own company.

About a thousand dollars a year is a huge sum? Given the fact that I make at least 10 bucks more an hour, and have tons more benefits than a non union worker of the same caliber? I've got no desire to own a construction company. As you should know by now, I don't work as much now, as I have in the past. My 6-7/ 10 hour days are behind me. Let's just say that I am semi-retired. My only aspiration as a business owner is to use a little money to start up a little restaurant. Maybe when I finally get a little hotdog stand(with possibly the best sauce you ever had the pleasure to have on a dog), since you live in Paintsville, you will help a small business owner out. If you question my work ethic, as it seems you are, I can give many references that will tell you that I would almost screw myself into the ground when they couldn't find me something to do. I have even told several foremans, that if they couldn't find me something to do, I would just go home, because I couldn't stand to just stand around and wait on a job.

[nky]

Look at how the Wall Street bankers make fun of the protesters, by drinking champagne as they walk by.



[YOUTUBE="Wall Street"]vAWv9gV8Cxo[/YOUTUBE]

looks like some type of charity fundraiser. One guy looked like he had a Tux on.

[vundy33]

lol!!!!

What better way is there to respond to a bunch of nut cases that dont even know what they are protesting to begin with..


By the way RV, are you intentionally ignoring the requests I asked of you?

lol...I have to agree with you on that. That's pretty funny, hahaha.

[Hoot Gibson]

looks like some type of charity fundraiser. One guy looked like he had a Tux on.

That's just how rich Wall Street folks dress for work. They fly into the city on their private jets, ride their limos to their plush offices around noon, sip champagne while a poorly paid assistant buys stocks using insider information and money taken from a trust fund. Then they take a moment to laugh at the little people who have real jobs before calling it an early day.

If a rich man (rich folks are almost always white men who inherited their wealth from great-grandfathers who made the family fortune off the sweat of slaves) have any energy left at the end of the day, then he may treat himself to a Broadway play or by personally serving an eviction notice on some hard working single mom on his way back to the airport.

Such is the Obama vision of America.

[TheRealVille]

I would just think that a guy that is as qualified with the impeccable work ethic and performance level that you state, would be creating his own destiny rather than having to rely on someone else that you have to pay huge sums of money to represent your interests. I would think that someone as yourself would be ramrodding his own company.

My destiny is pretty much paid for off of the back of one of the big businesses you people support, via the asbestos companies that flagrantly killed my dad by lying about the harms of asbestos to the workers that were working in it back in the 60's /70's.

[TheRealVille]

I would just think that a guy that is as qualified with the impeccable work ethic and performance level that you state, would be creating his own destiny rather than having to rely on someone else that you have to pay huge sums of money to represent your interests. I would think that someone as yourself would be ramrodding his own company.

Maybe if one of your parents were flagrantly lied to about the harms of their product, and were killed as a result of their actions, you might have a different outlook.

[TheRealVille]

Oh, the nerve of those evil Wall Street workers! Enjoying drinks on a balcony overlooking Wall Street! What evil monsters they must be. I'll bet that guy in the middle even speaks with a high falutin' British accent like Stuart Varney of the Fox News Channel. That is probably FNC's balcony.

That's just how rich Wall Street folks dress for work. They fly into the city on their private jets, ride their limos to their plush offices around noon, sip champagne while a poorly paid assistant buys stocks using insider information and money taken from a trust fund. Then they take a moment to laugh at the little people who have real jobs before calling it an early day.

If a rich man (rich folks are almost always white men who inherited their wealth from great-grandfathers who made the family fortune off the sweat of slaves) have any energy left at the end of the day, then he may treat himself to a Broadway play or by personally serving an eviction notice on some hard working single mom on his way back to the airport.

Such is the Obama vision of America.

Refresh my memory, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I remember you being one of the main ones bitching when Wall Street companies were getting bailed out?

[Hoot Gibson]

Refresh my memory, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I remember you being one of the main ones bitching when Wall Street companies were getting bailed out?

Use the search tool if you can't remember my posts. I get tired of repeating myself to you. Anybody who is outraged at bank bailouts should be protesting in front of the White House. Where are the protests over the Obama administration looting GM, firing its CEO, and giving a large ownership interest to the UAW? Nowhere. Why? Because this "uprising" is an astroturf job being pushed by left wing nutroots and Obama's private army of union thugs. Criticizing the theft of GM would constitute a circular firing squad.

[TheRealVille]

Use the search tool if you can't remember my posts. I get tired of repeating myself to you. Anybody who is outraged at bank bailouts should be protesting in front of the White House. Where are the protests over the Obama administration looting GM, firing its CEO, and giving a large ownership interest to the UAW? Nowhere. Why? Because this "uprising" is an astroturf job being pushed by left wing nutroots and Obama's private army of union thugs. Criticizing the theft of GM would constitute a circular firing squad.

Obama had nothing to do with giving the UAW 17.5% percent of GM. GM and the union worked out a deal in 2005 as part of their healthcare plan, and to try to help save the company back then. Nothing was given to the UAW. There is a good read at these links that might explain some of the way the deals went down.

http://www.katu.com/news/business/43784112.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02uaw.html

[Hoot Gibson]

As I said, the protesters have been very selective in their selection of targets for outrage over bailouts. Barack Obama has supported every bank bailout, both as a US Senator and as president. The unions have benefited greatly from the GM and Chrysler bailouts, yet the protesters support Obama and are attacking capitalism, instead of Obama's brand of socialism that increases government's stranglehold on businesses and pours taxpayer money into private companies, while rewarding unions monetarily for their rock solid political support.

[INDENT]

Which Side Are You On?

How the UAW's new ownership stake in GM and Chrysler will defang the union.

It's been a long time since American devotees of Marx (Karl, not Groucho) have had much to cheer about. But with the bankruptcy filings of General Motors and Chrysler, and the transfer of stock ownership from the firms' long-suffering shareholders to the government and unions, communists of the world can rejoice. The workers are now, finally, significant owners of the means of production. The United Auto Workers control about 65 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of General Motors.

For many ardent capitalists, this state of affairs represents a kind of Armageddon. These people didn't rage about the somnolent boards, the incompetent management, the failed economic policies, and the massive destruction of shareholder wealth. No, what really angers folks like Jack Welch—his grumpiness was on display at a recent panel and during an unintentionally hilarious CNBC gabfest on the future of capitalism—is the prospect of an unholy alliance of government bureaucrats and union bosses controlling the fate of a few failed companies.

[/INDENT]

[INDENT]

Autoworkers See Help From $10 Billion Fund in U.S. Health Plan

Aug. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Legislation overhauling U.S. health care includes $10 billion to pay some of the most expensive medical costs for millions of autoworkers, steelworkers, schoolteachers and other early retirees with coverage.

The provision, embedded in legislation passed in July by House and Senate committees, may help offset health-care concessions made earlier this year by the United Auto Workers as part of a government rescue of General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC and related cost-cutting at Ford Motor Co.

The UAW cited the provision in an e-mail this week urging its members to support a health-care overhaul, President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

Company, municipal and union-sponsored plans that meet eligibility would be reimbursed for 80 percent of the health costs from $15,000 to $90,000 for early retirees ages 55 to 64, according to the legislative proposal.

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

As I said, the protesters have been very selective in their selection of targets for outrage over bailouts. Barack Obama has supported every bank bailout, both as a US Senator and as president. The unions have benefited greatly from the GM and Chrysler bailouts, yet the protesters support Obama and are attacking capitalism, instead of Obama's brand of socialism that increases government's stranglehold on businesses and pours taxpayer money into private companies, while rewarding unions monetarily for their rock solid political support.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

[INDENT][/INDENT]

But,you said that the deal with Obama gave the UAW part ownership of GM. That was either an outright lie by you, or you misunderstand the deal that GM worked out with the union and the bondholders to keep them out of bankruptcy. It was a deal to help save the company. The ownership of the UAW comes through the union's healthcare and retirement package. What is wrong with the UAW owning part of GM? Many companies' workers own part of those companies.You also fail to mention that GM has paid the government back for those bailout loans.

[TheRealVille]

"The UAW agreed during the first half of this year to let GM, Ford and Chrysler forestall about $21 billion in cash contributions to union-run retiree health-care funds in exchange for equity and future payments. Thousands of UAW members also agreed to retire early in the restructuring.

In the e-mail Aug. 17 urging support of a health-care revamp, the UAW said the plan would “provide assistance to employers and Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations, to help them continue coverage for early retirees.”

The so-called VEBAs pool money into company or union-run funds that are used exclusively for future health-care coverage."

[Hoot Gibson]

But,you said that the deal with Obama gave the UAW part ownership of GM. That was either an outright lie by you, or you misunderstand the deal that GM worked out with the union and the bondholders to keep them out of bankruptcy. It was a deal to help save the company. You also fail to mention that GM has paid the government back for those bailout loans.

I try to debate rationally with you, RV, but it takes two to tango. The Obama administration forced the UAW into bankruptcy as part of the bailout deal, and the UAW emerged with a 17.5 percent ownership interest. That's not hard to understand. As for paying the government back, it has not happened. I don't think that you are lying on that point, I just honestly do not believe that you understand what you read, when you bother to read what you post at all.

Whatever payments GM has made to the government, taxpayers will never be fully repaid for this boondoggle. I am currently shopping for a used car and Ford is the only American brand that is included on my list of prospects. I will never support the nationalization of a private company as long as I have a choice.

[INDENT]

General Motors Will Never Repay Taxpayers

The Obama administration, and its media backers, have seized upon news that General Motors made a $3.2 billion profit in the first quarter of 2011 as proof positive that its auto bailout is a success. President Obama is so buoyed that he is reportedly planning to make the bailout a major part of his reelection campaign.

But by this standard, Charlie Sheen’s comedy tour ought to be declared a smash hit. Sheen’s backers will lose relatively less money on him than taxpayers will on the bailout.

No sooner had GM made its announcement than Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne dashed off a stinging rebuke to naysayers (like me) who had dared doubt the wisdom of the bailout. Likewise, the auto czar Ron Bloom credited the turnaround to the president’s “tough love” approach.

No doubt, $3.2 billion is a big number. But an even bigger number is $60 billion. That’s what this administration and the last one together sank into GM (not to mention another $20 billion or so they dumped into Chrysler). When President Obama gave GM this money, he insisted that it was not a handout but an “investment” that would cost taxpayers “not a dime.”

But if there was ever any doubt that this wasn’t going to happen, this earning report dispels it.

For starters, included in the $3.2 billion figure is the net $1.5 billion that the company generated from the one-time sale of Delphi, its auto parts supplier, and Ally Financial, its financial arm. Subtract that, and its performance looks much less impressive, especially compared to its rival Ford that really didn’t receive a dime from taxpayers yet made $2.6 billion last quarter—or nearly a billion more than GM.

But cold, hard cash is not the only help that GM got. Usually when companies declare bankruptcy, their tax liabilities increase since they have no more losses to write off. But GM got Uncle Sam’s special bankruptcy package that allows it write off up to $45 billion of old losses going forward. That puts its total bailout at up to $75 billion*. Even that’s not all. The Treasury gave GM $10 billion of the $60 billion as a loan; the rest was through the purchase of equity. (It has more or less paid back the loan.)

The equity means two things: One, GM has zero interest payments, something that gives it a distinct advantage over competitors. Ford, by contrast, had to pay $251 million in debt-service costs. Despite this, GM’s real per vehicle margin was over $1,000 less than Ford’s, thanks to the heavy incentives it was forced to give buyers. (If the administration can call this success, can it please call me the next American Idol?)....

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

I try to debate rationally with you, RV, but it takes two to tango. The Obama administration forced the UAW into bankruptcy as part of the bailout deal, and the UAW emerged with a 17.5 percent ownership interest. That's not hard to understand. As for paying the government back, it has not happened. I don't think that you are lying on that point, I just honestly do not believe that you understand what you read, when you bother to read what you post at all.

Whatever payments GM has made to the government, taxpayers will never be fully repaid for this boondoggle. I am currently shopping for a used car and Ford is the only American brand that is included on my list of prospects. I will never support the nationalization of a private company as long as I have a choice.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

They emerged with 17.5 percent, as payment for the healthcare and retirement that GM owed the union.

[Hoot Gibson]

They emerged with 17.5 percent, as payment for the healthcare and retirement that GM owed the union.

They emerged with a 17.5 percent interest, whereas they owned nothing before the Obama-induced bankruptcy. Now, we have discovered that billions are pouring into union retirement funds as part of Obamacare, including a large payment to the UAW. As I have said repeatedly, Obama is this nation's first outlaw president. Organized labor bought his support and he has not missed an opportunity to pay dividends on their investment.

[TheRealVille]

They emerged with a 17.5 percent interest, whereas they owned nothing before the Obama-induced bankruptcy. Now, we have discovered that billions are pouring into union retirement funds as part of Obamacare, including a large payment to the UAW. As I have said repeatedly, Obama is this nation's first outlaw president. Organized labor bought his support and he has not missed an opportunity to pay dividends on their investment.

Let me slow down for you. They emerged with 17.5% as payment for their healthcare and retirement, that they already were owed. GM had to pay them for this some way or the other, as private retirements are protected by the federal government, and for good reason. This deal with the automakers proves it. What if they had been able to just simply file bankruptcy, and screw the workers out of their retirement and healthcare than GM was already supposed to have in a fund just for that?

[Hoot Gibson]

Let me slow down for you. They emerged with 17.5% as payment for their healthcare and retirement, that they already were owed. GM had to pay them for this some way or the other, as private retirements are protected by the federal government, and for good reason. This deal with the automakers proves it. What if they had been able to just simply file bankruptcy, and screw the workers out of their retirement and healthcare than GM was already supposed to have in a fund just for that?

All creditors are owed something. That is what makes them creditors. Not all creditors get paid during bankruptcy proceedings. The UAW should have taken their losses just like so many investors did. Most of all, the US government should never take ownership of a private company. Private ownership of the means of production is one of the things that separate this nation from socialist countries.

[TheRealVille]

Not all creditors get paid during bankruptcy proceedings. The UAW should have taken their losses just like so many investors did. Most of all, the US government should never take ownership of a private company. Private ownership of the means of production is one of the things that separate this nation from socialist countries.

But, all retirement plans are protected from such. You think companies that set up retirement plans for workers should be allowed to default on those plans by simply filing bankruptcy? Your type of thinking is exactly why those funds are put into trusts that are government protected.

[Hoot Gibson]

But, all retirement plans are protected from such. You think companies that set up retirement plans for workers should be allowed to default on those plans by simply filing bankruptcy?

Yes, I do, if the alternative is to spend my tax dollars to bail them out. The UAW received preferential treatment because Obama and the Democrats decided to spend billions to save GM. That 17.5 percent ownership interest only had value because Obama put taxpayers on the hook to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.