The Costa Citationair

[*#$% Headwinds]

Gret, thanks for making my point. Your source is a shill for a right wing anti-union think tank. His opinion means nothing to me. Have a nice day.

 

[gret]

"The problem with closed minded people, is that their mouth is always open."

-Unknown

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

Ahh. I validated your source and I'm closed minded? The mans job is to slander unions. Come to me with a reputable source, not propaganda. I will listen all day and twice on Sunday.

 

[Praetorian]

How is what I wrote out of context? I didn't offer any commentary other than Praetorian made up the 93 percent of all income number, and then I quoted the text that specifically refuted his claim. It doesn't matter what he may have "heard" from unreliable extremest left wing talking heads. They either don't know what their talking about, or more likely, are purposely lying in an effort rile up the sheep. The actual data from the IRS is 17 percent. If he would have said 20 percent, I wouldn't have called him on it, but 93 percent is a ridiculous and a intentionally misleading inaccuracy.

You don't like my numbers so you attack the source? Matt Taibbi his hardly a left wing extremest, he has however been famously critical of the administrations fiscal policies.

At any rate, if you don't like that source, how about the CBO...

"... income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined …"

 

[gret]

Teamsters good enough for you? Even they thought the bakers leadership were off their rockers...-

"On Friday, Nov. 9, the BCTGM began to strike at some Hostess production facilities without notice to the Teamsters despite assurances they would not proceed with job actions without contacting the Teamsters Union. This unannounced action put Teamster members in the difficult position of facing picket lines without knowing their right to honor such a line without being disciplined.

As is our longstanding tradition, Teamster members by and large are honoring Bakery Worker picket lines when encountered and complying with their contractual obligations when not encountering picket lines. The BCTGM leaders are putting Teamster members in a horrible position – asking them to support a strike that will put them out of a job when they haven’t even asked all their members to go on strike.

That strike is now on the verge of forcing the company to liquidate – it is difficult for Teamster members to believe that is what the BCTGM Hostess members ultimately wanted to accomplish when they went out on strike. We may never know unless the BCTGM members, based on the facts they know today, get to determine their fate in a secret ballot vote. Teamster members would understand that the will of the BCTGM Hostess membership was truly heard if that was the case."

Teamsters release on November 15, 2012

​

http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-bakery-workers-should-hold-secret-ballot-vote-hostess

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

See? I will agree that BCTGM chose badly. However IMO, the writing on the wall says that even if they had agreed to more concessions, it would simply have been delaying the inevitable liquidation. They had already saved the company once in 2004 with $115M in concessions that the company failed to capitalize. Then the private equity group multiplied Hostess' debt, while executives received massive (80% or more) raises right up until 2011. The Bakery workers action may have accelerated the inevitable, but they didn't bankrupt the company.

 

[Praetorian]

And here is another great piece by "extreme left" Tiabbi, partisans beware...

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

Read this conservatives, I think you will actually enjoy...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

 

[OHGOON]

Can't stand the guy. I just feel uncertain about the economy. How about you? We just have different views on how to bring certainty back around. I think less government and allowing people keep more of what they make will stimulate the economy. Let the people chose winners and losers. You think bigger government and letting politicians redistribute the taxes as they see fit as the way. It's a difference in philosophy.

You make this sound as if it's a zero sum game when it's not. It's not a difference in philosophy as it's a conversation about reality vs ideological phantasy and or mythology.

You might not personally like Hannity but you are spouting the same "tinkle on" nonsense he does so gleefully every night. The country has tried the "feed the rich and we will all be better off" routine since Ronnie's administration. It failed!

If it was so good for us to have less taxes, less regulation and more money in everyone's pocket as you claim, then why are we in the mess we are in?? (Please don't start with Obama's deficit spending, because he inherited the biggest sh!t sandwich ever before he was even sworn into office and then had to contend with the party of "NO" at every turn.) Besides, no Republican gave two wits about the deficit or shrinking the government (TSA, the largest one time expansion of Federal Workers under W.) when they were in total control of the government.

In other words, conservatives talk a lot about smaller government and less spending, but when actually in power their actions never seem to back up what they are selling to the public. The only reason their sales pitch is effective is that most right wing disciples seem to willfully ignore facts in favor of "Happy Thoughts" about a bygone era that when examined up close actually never existed in the first place. Mythology pure!

Cue up "America the Beautiful" and begin furiously waving little American flags conveniently made in China for so much less...

I.M.H.O of course.

 

[Sparse]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

 

[OHGOON]

Ahh. I validated your source and I'm closed minded? The mans job is to slander unions. Come to me with a reputable source, not propaganda. I will listen all day and twice on Sunday.

The problem seems to be gret's inability to distinguish between propaganda and honest reporting.

I.M.H.O.

 

[OHGOON]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

Wait, wait, you identified an executive manager who does one thing when he says another... How shocking!

How about the Koch brothers, why do they get a free pass from you?

http://theweek.com/article/index/206405/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters

Buffet however is definitely the wrong example to compare this lying sack of excrement to. He has been consistent throughout that he has no problems with paying more and has called on the other 1%ters to do the same. So I don't think he will be hopping on this anytime soon because he cares more about his reputation and word than he does in saving a few mill on his tax return.

I.M.H.O

 

[gret]

The problem seems to be gret's inability to distinguish between propaganda and honest reporting.

I.M.H.O.

Oh...I can tell the difference and also recognize that both sides have points in their favor that are positive.

Personally, I am just more comfortable making choices and decisions for myself, rather than giving the authority to others. If others like the latter, that's OK with me...just don't say it is better and that all of us have to conform to your views.

When we generalize...we are normally wrong. Mgmt isn't always bad and unions aren't always good...it depends on their leadership skills.

There isn't an answer to all the previous posts that are going to satisfy everyone...time to move on as this is becoming rather boorish.

 

[Praetorian]

I guess warren buffet will do,it next. Funny how they support Obama but they like republican policy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/12/02/is-costcos-jim-senegal-a-hypocrite/

I hope you read the article you linked, because it makes my point about the kind of privilege the system has bestowed upon the wealthy:

"I hate to point out that I don’t think it is really that big a deal to the low six figure plodders (like we fractional pilots) who get the brief time in the sunlit lands over a quarter million in AGI. You really have to have quite a bit in invest-able assets outside retirement accounts for the new tax on investment income to sting an awful lot."

 

[Mungusaurus]

Can some moderator please change the subject title of this thread as it has NOTHING to do with CitationAir!

 

[X-rated]

You don't like my numbers so you attack the source? Matt Taibbi his hardly a left wing extremest, he has however been famously critical of the administrations fiscal policies.

At any rate, if you don't like that source, how about the CBO...

"... income of households in the top 1 percent of earners grew by 275%, compared to 65% for the next 19 percent, just under 40% for the next 60 percent, 18% for the bottom fifth of households. As a result of that uneven income growth, the share of total after-tax income received by the 1 percent of the population in households with the highest income more than doubled between 1979 and 2007, whereas the share received by low- and middle-income households declined …"

WTF are you talking about? I only commented on one thing and one thing only. You said the top 1 percent of American earners accounted for 93 percent of all US income. That is categorically untrue and is an outrageous distortion of reality. It's so ridiculous, I find it impossible to take you seriously. You are either completely out of your depth, or are just a liar.

We now live in a country where, income inequality has soared to the highest level since the Great Depression, with the top one percent taking 93 percent of the income earned last year. A pure plutocracy.

The Reality:

"The income thresholds are for the amount of AGI on a return, not per taxpayer.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009."

 

[OHGOON]

Oh...I can tell the difference and also recognize that both sides have points in their favor that are positive.

Personally, I am just more comfortable making choices and decisions for myself, rather than giving the authority to others. If others like the latter, that's OK with me...just don't say it is better and that all of us have to conform to your views.

When we generalize...we are normally wrong. Mgmt isn't always bad and unions aren't always good...it depends on their leadership skills.

There isn't an answer to all the previous posts that are going to satisfy everyone...time to move on as this is becoming rather boorish.

Now this is your first post in this thread that I can wholeheartedly support. I am shocked, but I actually agree with all of it!

Calm, fair and reasoned.

Thank you, well done.
:beer:

 

[gret]

Now this is your first post in this thread that I can wholeheartedly support. I am shocked, but I actually agree with all of it!

Calm, fair and reasoned.

Thank you, well done.
:beer:

Damn it! I'm always fair and calm! Why can't people see that?

 

[Praetorian]

WTF are you talking about? I only commented on one thing and one thing only. You said the top 1 percent of American earners accounted for 93 percent of all US income. That is categorically untrue and is an outrageous distortion of reality. It's so ridiculous, I find it impossible to take you seriously. You are either completely out of your depth, or are just a liar.

I gave the source of the 93% number and you began bleating about it being from right wing extremists. I then went on to refute that assertion and gave you a similar separate reference to income inequality from the CBO. Try to follow along.

Given the marshmallow filled bubble, from within which your clouded view of reality seems to emanate I couldn't care less what you think of me.

 

[Praetorian]

Oh, and here is another separate reference to the 93% number. Maybe Bloomberg news is lying too?

"The recovery that officially began in mid-2009 hasn’t arrived in most Americans’ paychecks. In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service data."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...f-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

 

[X-rated]

Oh, and here is another separate reference to the 93% number. Maybe Bloomberg news is lying too?

"The recovery that officially began in mid-2009 hasn’t arrived in most Americans’ paychecks. In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation’s income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service data."

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...f-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

Do you really not understand the difference between income growth rate and total income? What you said was "taking 93 percent of the income earned last year". You didn't say 93 percent of the income growth! Ahh, but it's a minor mistake. You only missed by about 76 percent of every earned dollar in the worlds largest economy. Wow...