The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Twinkie CEO Admits Company Took Employees Pensions and Put It Toward Executive Pay

 

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal , Hostess’ CEO, Gregory Rayburn, essentially admitted that his company stole employee pension money and put it toward CEO and senior executive pay (aka “operations”). While this isn't technically illegal, it's another sleazy theft by Hostess executives - who've paid themselves handsomely while running their company into the ground. Just last month, a judge agreed to let Hostess executives suck another $1.8 million out of the bankrupt company to pay bonuses to CEOs.

 

If there's no way to recover the money for the Hostess pension plans for workers, then we the taxpayers - through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. - will have to foot the bill to make sure workers get the retirement money they paid in.

 

[StrangeSox]

Right to work laws explained, debunked and demystified

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012...ed-demystified/

[Y2HH]

Right to work laws explained, debunked and demystified

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012...ed-demystified/

 

I know that's just the title of the article, but stop posting this stuff as if it's fact...this is just some left wingers opinion.

[StrangeSox]

Nah, what he said in there is factually accurate. Unions are required to represent non-union members equally, which is why they always allowed an agency fee.

[StrangeSox]

besides, this is the explicitly partisan democrat thread.

[Y2HH]

Nah, what he said in there is factually accurate. Unions are required to represent non-union members equally, which is why they always allowed an agency fee.

 

He said quite a bit more than that in a 3 page article.

[StrangeSox]

Well, this being a discussion board and all, feel free to point out the parts you take issue with and why. Otherwise I'm left shrugging my shoulders as to what you actually disagree with.

 

For instance, I have an issue with how he references to a "Republican Congress," as if it means the same thing in 1947 and 2012, that they're the same people or the same philosophy, static throughout the decades. It's an ahistorical argument.

 

Edited December 12, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

He said quite a bit more than that in a 3 page article.

 

If he didn't, that would have been some enormous text

[StrangeSox]

The Republican Bait-And-Switch

 

http://prospect.org/article/republican-bait-and-switch

 

One striking thing about Governor Rick Snyder’s successful push for a right-to-work law in Michigan—and Scott Walker’s similar push against public employee unions in Wisconsin—is that they relied on bait-and-switch tactics. In their campaigns, neither governor announced their support for right-to-work laws, or more broadly, their opposition to labor unions. They both campaigned as moderate Republicans, interested in a straightforward agenda of job creation and deficit reduction.

 

To hide one’s intentions and then push through a divisive, far-reaching agenda—without public input or discussion—is betrays a deep contempt for the democratic process. You might present President Obama’s support for an individual mandate as an example of the same—given his opposition during the Democratic primaries—but the similarities end there; Obama may have opposed the mandate, but he campaigned on health care reform. His reversal on the mandate was in service of a goal voters supported.

 

Not only did Snyder not support right-to-work laws during his gubernatorial bid, but he didn’t campaign as an opponent of labor, making this reversal a huge surprise for Michiganders writ large.

 

Given Scott Walker’s similar actions in Wisconsin, it seems that this is becoming a favored approach for Republican politicians. Campaign as a moderate defender of the status quo, and then—when the spotlight has moved—unleash a maximist, hyper-ideological agenda.

[StrangeSox]

Along with its new policy pronouncement, the Fed released its economic projections (pdf). What struck me is that the Fed expects the unemployment rate to be well above its long-run level even in the fourth quarter of 2015, which is as far as its projections go.

 

This means that the Fed is projecting elevated unemployment nine full years after the Great Recession started. And, of course, the Fed has been consistently over-optimistic.

 

This is an awesome failure of policy — not solely at the Fed, of course.When I wax caustic about Very Serious People, bear this in mind. Faced with an economic crisis where textbook macroeconomics told us exactly how to respond, people of influence chose instead to obsess over budget deficits and generally punt on employment; and the result has been a huge economic and human disaster.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/1...t-decade-watch/

Edited December 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Canada's Not Buying This

 

There's a huge fight brewing in Canada over the F-35, a new fighter plane of which Canada promised to buy 65 a couple of years back, and which now looks like it's going to cost our nice northern neighbors somewhere north of $46 billion over the life of the airplanes. This has caused the Canadians to get a good close look at the lunatic way our defense industries operate down here and, as is also the case when they look at the way we deliver health care, the Canadians think we're all out of our minds, and that we've played them for suckers. They are, of course, correct on both counts.

 

There is no point for Canadians to ask why the aircraft Ottawa apparently committed to buy in 2010 is turning out to be much more expensive, and taking far longer to develop, than first projected. The answers to those questions can only be found south of the border where defence contracts have long had a way of ballooning way out of control. The questions for Canadians is: Why did Canada simply take the U.S. Defense Department's word that the plane would do all it was supposed to do at the cost that was then quoted?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the F-35 is an epic lemon even by our standards for defense-related boondoggles, which are epic in and of themselves. It is also our first trillion-dollar defense system. These two things are not coincidental.

 

Yet, when the F-35 was first conceived, there was (and is) no real "enemy" out there that it could possibly be used against. State to state conventional war among major powers - the only kind which can afford jets like these - is simply inconceivable today. So when the U.S. military was asked to dream up its requirements for a "fifth" generation fighter, it simply decided to have everything it could for any possibility that might arise. It was to be the flying version of the deluxe Swiss Army Knife.

 

The sheer magnitude of the boondoggle in question may just be dawning in Canada, but it's been percolating down here for some time.

 

The F-35 program has had a troubled history. In 2010 the Pentagon disclosed that delays and cost overruns had resulted in a cost per aircraft that exceeded the original contract by 50 percent. Defense Secretary Robert Gates informed Congress of another 13 month production delay and budget increase of $3 billion. A 2011 Pentagon study cited 13 major problems. The F-35 integrated power package was described as unreliable and difficult to service. There were safety concerns about lightning protection and thermal management, as well as possible fire hazards in the fuel dump system. The study also revealed that the airframe was unlikely to last through the lifespan of the aircraft. If the F-35 were indispensable to the country's future security, cost considerations would properly take a back seat, but that is not the case. A Foreign Policy magazine survey of 76 top military experts in 2012 revealed that 26 of them rated the F-35 program as the top candidate for immediate elimination.

 

And, of course, it is nowhere close to being eliminated at all, even though, in one of the truly remarkable quotes of the year, an aviation expert named John Arquilla pointed out,

 

"We have had only one fighter shot down by an enemy fighter jet in the last 40 years. We simply don't need to spend over a trillion dollars on a new fighter at this point."

 

Maybe after Nick Kristof gets done running to ground those poor Appalachian children who are gaming the SSI system rather than joining the military where they belong, he can get right on this. And, in Washington, we're arguing about what we're going to do to people on Medicare so the richest people in this country can kick in the money they found on top of the chiffarobe. Calling this madness is to insult the insane.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree with a lot of that - defense spending is out of whack. But generally speaking, simply because it's not conceivable that we would use or need those planes right now doesn't mean it's not important to continue researching and finding new and better equipment. If we go to war with Iran and we didn't have the best and most advanced equipment, people would be b****ing about not giving our armed forces the best chance to succeed at their mission and also survive.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

We don't need a trillion dollars worth of boondoggle fighter planes to completely demolish Iran's military capabilities fairly quickly. And if you're worried about the insurgency afterwards, assuming we decide to occupy another country for a decade+, how much is the F-22 really helping out there?

[Jenksismyhero]

We don't need a trillion dollars worth of boondoggle fighter planes to completely demolish Iran's military capabilities fairly quickly. And if you're worried about the insurgency afterwards, assuming we decide to occupy another country for a decade+, how much is the F-22 really helping out there?

 

It's a trillion dollars of research and development into future tech, it's not like we're spending money on old beater cars or something. I agree we don't need that, but who the hell knows what we'll need in 5 years or 10 years. I'd rather be safe not sorry. There's absolutely things we need to cut and stop wasting money on. All i'm saying is "we don't need it today so it's a waste of money" isn't a good argument.

[StrangeSox]

You can justify any and all defense spending that way. In fact, that's exactly how it's done.

 

Anyway, his argument wasn't exactly "we don't need it today," it was "we have no conceivable need for it in the future, and it is enormously expensive and ill-conceived to boot."

 

e.g. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012...te_the_pentagon

Edited December 14, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Brian Fyscher and Mike Huckabee are blaming this tragedy on "taking God out of the classroom." f*** the both of them.

[Balta1701]

I don't quite know where to put this but I think it's useful to note somewhere, and it's not on the subject of the gun debate.

 

Since 2008, at the state level, ~ $4.35 billion total has been cut from mental health services nationwide. The article I'm citing says this is the largest comparative cuts to mental health services in this country since the 1970's, when the "mental institutions" of the time were reformed. There are now thousands fewer inpatient beds available, at the same time as there has been an increase in need thanks to the depression.

 

The "Sequester" would, at the federal level...slash another $275 million per year out of mental health budgets. over the next decade, that would be another $3 billion+ worth of cuts. And that isn't counting the additional medicare cuts included.

[bmags]

Brian Fyscher and Mike Huckabee are blaming this tragedy on "taking God out of the classroom." f*** the both of them.

 

they must not remember the amish school shooting.

[Harry Chappas]

It's a trillion dollars of research and development into future tech, it's not like we're spending money on old beater cars or something. I agree we don't need that, but who the hell knows what we'll need in 5 years or 10 years. I'd rather be safe not sorry. There's absolutely things we need to cut and stop wasting money on. All i'm saying is "we don't need it today so it's a waste of money" isn't a good argument.

 

I just wish they could find a way to time the flyovers with the national anthem a little better.

[Y2HH]

I just wish they could find a way to time the flyovers with the national anthem a little better.

 

Those fly overs are for logging flight time/practice in order to retain your ability to pilot those jets. If they had no need to constantly log flight time in order to stay in practice, you wouldn't see flyovers happening at sporting events. It's not like they do them just to waste money.

[StrangeSox]

did not know that.

 

Still, the F-35 is a giant waste of money.

[Harry Chappas]

Those fly overs are for logging flight time/practice in order to retain your ability to pilot those jets. If they had no need to constantly log flight time in order to stay in practice, you wouldn't see flyovers happening at sporting events. It's not like they do them just to waste money.

 

I wasn't really serious, I was talking about getting it timed perfect to fly over as the singer finishes.

[Balta1701]

Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Medal of Honor winner and 2nd longest serving senator, has died at the age of 88.

[StrangeSox]

the Tea Party Nation has the solution to gun violence!

 

Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too.

 

Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place. As long as we have group think in the classrooms we will never see the end of this. […]

 

Work to devolve power back to the parents, the local officials, and the communities. A society that is top-down will inevitably lead to alienation of the sort we have seen here. This young man was twenty years old, and his actions were neither spurious nor random. As an FBI profiler said on television last night, he undoubtedly felt powerless and sought to remedy that. Why does a twenty year old feel powerless? He could leave his mother’s home at any time at his age. He feels powerless because he has lived in an over-bureaucratized society, one run ultimately from a far-away central location. […]

 

Restrict the sex in movies, television, on the internet. There is a reason why young people commit these sorts of crimes, and sex plays no small part. Their passions are eternally inflamed, and they wander the Earth with no outlet for their overstimulated glands. […]

 

Support the creation of local organizations to act as “neighborhood watch” for schools. Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive. Perhaps it’s time we start asking for volunteers to protect our children. It will require security checks, but isn’t that worth it? This dovetails with the union problem; the unions will fight this measure tooth-and-nail.

 

That bit lionizing Zimmerman and equating unarmed teenager Treyvon Martin to a deranged mass murderer is pretty awful!

 

Back in the 1980’s the moral relativism movement gained momentum, and the worst sin was the sin of judgementalism. This murder is the most recent fruit born of that diseased tree. Yes, we have a right, nay a duty, to judge. Evil cannot be ignored or dismissed lightly. That is precisely what we have done.

 

You see it in the schools where children may no longer be corrected. There was a time when teachers actually spanked children; now a teacher is in peril if he verbally chastises a bad kid. God, of course, has long been gone from the schools. We tell children they are animals, and that it’s o.k. to do whatever feels right because it’s “natural”. So we have 14 year old girls getting pregnant, 15 year old boys with venereal diseases and multiple children, we have gang warfare, drug abuse, alcoholism, violence. Revenge is a no-brainer to these youths, who have never been instructed in “vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord” and taught that an accounting will be made by the Great Judge later. No; you have to get vengeance now or the injustice will be eternal.

[StrangeSox]

This is a strong early contender for "craziest s*** you could possibly say about a terrible tragedy," it'll be hard to top

 

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/18/2...ewtown-carnage/

 

Today, Michael Harris, former Republican candidate for governor of Arizona and GOP campaign finance chairman, in an internationally televised news broadcast, cited “Israeli revenge” in, what he called, “the terrorist attack in Connecticut.”

 

Harris cited Israeli “rage” against the US and against President Barack Obama. By “Israel,” we mean “Netanyahu.”

 

The mission was to teach America a lesson, knowing that “America would take the punishment, keep “quiet,” and let a ‘fall guy’ take the blame.”

 

A “fall guy” is another word for “patsy.”

 

Harris, citing the flood of inconsistencies in the “cover story,” pointed out the following, “The facts are now becoming obvious. This is another case where Israel has chosen violence and terrorism where their bullying in Washington has failed. Israel believes the US “threw them under the bus,” particularly after the recent Gaza war, allowing Israel to be humiliated in the United Nations. Their response was to stage a terror attack, targeting America in the most hideous and brutal way possible, in fact, an Israeli “signature attack,” one that butchers children, one reminiscent of the attacks that killed so many children in Gaza?