This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Geithner Sacrificed Pensions Of Non-Union Delphi Retirees

Tyler Durden's picture


Back in 2009 when the government sacrificed GM and Chrysler bondholders just so labor unions (read voters) can be made whole, the media, for various reasons, decided not to pursue the decision-making process that left some workers with their pensions wiped out, while others were made whole and suffered no losses (with a comparable lack of investigation being conducted as to the decisions that shuttered some Chrysler dealers, but left others operating, a topic Zero Hedge had some say over). In fact, as the Daily Caller reminds us "The White House and Treasury Department have consistently maintained that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) independently made the decision to terminate the 20,000 non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan...Former Treasury official Matthew Feldman and former White House auto czar Ron Bloom, both key members of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the GM bailout, have testified under oath that the PBGC, not the administration, led the effort to terminate the non-union Delphi workers’ pension plan." Turns out they lied... Under oath.

The Daily Caller has more on this less than shocking revelation: "Emails obtained by The Daily Caller show that the U.S. Treasury Department, led by Timothy Geithner, was the driving force behind terminating the pensions of 20,000 salaried retirees at the Delphi auto parts manufacturing company. The move, made in 2009 while the Obama administration implemented its auto bailout plan, appears to have been made solely because those retirees were not members of labor unions."

In other words, since the sanctity of the labor union would be untouched with their pension loss, those workers were expendable. Not so much the unionized workers, and potential re-voters. Of course this reminds us of an analysis presented here previous debating whether Labor Unions are the "New, Old Superpacs." Because while one or two billionaires may have enough money to buy a lot of GM and Chrysler bonds if they so desire, a million UAW workers collectively are more than capable of inverting the superpriorty waterfall structure embedded in every bankruptcy which in turn could easily make said billionaires into millionaires or far less.

DC continues:

The internal government emails contradict sworn testimony, in federal court and before Congress, given by several Obama administration figures. They also indicate that the administration misled lawmakers and the courts about the sequence of events surrounding the termination of those non-union pensions, and that administration figures violated federal law.


Delphi, a General Motors company, is one of the world’s largest automotive parts manufacturers. Twenty thousand of its workers lost nearly their entire pensions when the government bailed out GM. At the same time, Delphi employees who were members of the United Auto Workers union saw their pensions topped off and made whole.

Somehow, despite potential evidence to perjury, we doubt the the outgoing Trasury Secretary who has at most a few more months in his current position before he shifts to a cushy position in some university or Wall Street bank, will lose much sleep over the prospect of appearing in court and having to defend why he may have lied to Congress. After all, as the head of the Eurogroup will gladly remind us every so often, "when it becomes serious, you have to lie."


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:07 | 2684682 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Just the tip of a large iceberg.  Send Timmy to the fucking guillotine already along with all the other criminal paper-pushers.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:07 | 2684685 flacon
flacon's picture

Who put the apes in charge of this zoo?!

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:11 | 2684708 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Blame it on TurboTax.


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:17 | 2684727 Jay Gould Esq.
Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Frankly, the current crop in power govern as little more than gangsters.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:24 | 2684761 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Like a third world banana republic

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:25 | 2684764 Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

and he still walks around like King Kong. 




Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:31 | 2684804 saturn
saturn's picture

You know how king kong ended up..

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:49 | 2684873 HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

"I am not a crook!"

"You won't have Dick TIMMAY to kick around."

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:47 | 2685084 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

"You're either with us, or against us."

Got Gang?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:23 | 2685320 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

Yeah, and we call ourselves "We the People". We've marked our territory. Maybe you've been to our hood or seen it on TV. It's a little place called Planet Earth. We're getting ready to have a little gang bang with our rivals, our sworn enemys till death, the Bankers. This time we're going to "finish the job".

Dec 21st, 2012 - Worldwide





Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:42 | 2685598 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

You know, I think the third world is getting sick and tired of being compared to the US. Why does everyone have to insult the thirld world that way?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:09 | 2684940 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

Now the delema. If Romney wins the election does any one think his gang will be

less corrupt? The only way to fix this is to shrink government. If you still have a job and

are actually getting paid, how do you limit paying taxes whithout having the IRS come

after your assets?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:39 | 2685062 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

I'm not advising doing anything illegal, but I've heard it takes about 5 years of non-compliance with the IRS before things get that serious. The obvious question being, will this system/government/country exist in 5 years?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:49 | 2685093 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

IRS has been buying lots and lots of guns over the last few years, and hiring lots of crazed statists to man them.

Then they pick a target, conduct a raid, and cart off ALL of the booty.

Not bad work, if ya can get it.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:16 | 2685151 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Not remotely true in my experience...  it might take them a while to catch you for not filing, but I don't think this typically takes 5 years...  it's dependent on a lot of things, but I consider 5 years to be an outside chance rather than a gimme...  the other problem is that once you've been identified, the time it takes to get a lien placed on your assets can be very quick...  this can be extended through some...  legal meandering and puffing, but in general can occur very quickly.  Once the lien is in place, your wiggle room is much, much tighter...  However, there isn't some IRS guidebook that says, "let folks eat cake for 5 years and then drop the boom on em".  Once you get identified, it's generally a quick process after that...  the only question is when will you be identified?  (hint: with mandated electronic filing and the 1099 system, catching people for not reporting or under-reporting income is getting a lot easier).  Remember, they're desperate for money...


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:52 | 2685231 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Thanks...I really don't know. Just knew a guy once who got wacked by them - he'd done non-compliance for 5 years (per the newspaper articles) which amazed me. Of course he was caught and sent to the Big House.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:22 | 2685550 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

As one caught in a common tax trap (forget loopholes) and dealing with the IRS fascists now, they do not seem to take five years. Even when I paid the requested amounts I get new threatening letters for more om our friendly civil servants. I am asking myself what the limit is to put up with these faceless nameless little turds. In government there are no mistakes. There is only 100% compliance (submission) or fraud. Even if it is a "mistake" you get crushed with penalties and threats unlike anything the private sector can do.

I am preparing my last appeal to wave the penalties applied to the penalties and interest applied to the actual original tax. I am canning my overpriced underperforming tax representatives.and going to write a reasoned appeal to the gun toting IRS. My theoretically conservative Congressman will get a if he cares.

When you deal with one of the thousands of government police agencies you realize it is their full time job and ability to make your life hell till you submit. It is not their job to help you or deal with you fairly and as a fellow citizen. If you piss them off they will come after you every year. If it is the TSA they will call the pervs to do a body cavity search on you.

I have changed sides in my reading of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:18 | 2684732 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

WROL (Without Rule of Law) it will only get worse from here. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:06 | 2684920 XitSam
XitSam's picture

It's only WROL for the elites. The peon, the serf, the regular people are being oppressed with more and more laws, regulations and gestapo tactics.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:43 | 2685383 tbone654
tbone654's picture

I can't help thinking this must be what some of the citizens of Germany felt like once Adolf Hitler took power and began to rule...

We may be getting to a point where executive order will eliminate the vote all together...  Who would dare complain?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 17:15 | 2685823 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

wait are you trying to organize to fight against bad treatment??  you should be strung up as a pro union thug



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:21 | 2684990 snaphooker
snaphooker's picture

The rule of law has become the law of rule

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:34 | 2685361 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

The Government  (the rich people) are stealing everything that is not nailed down from us (we the people, us working class citizen slaves)

Turn around is fair play...

Dec 21st, 2012

Let the games begin!

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:45 | 2685609 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

I think it should be a play on of the acronym AWOL - Absent Without Official Leave.


AROL, Absent Rule Of Law.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:16 | 2684722 101 years and c...
101 years and counting's picture

the sheep. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:18 | 2684735 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

That's raccciiiisstts. Consider yourself a person of interest. One more out of line comment and you will be directed to the nearest fusion center.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:26 | 2684772 Apeman
Apeman's picture

Hey man, no need to start insulting apes.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:09 | 2684939 Georgiabelle
Georgiabelle's picture

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the so-called Department of Justice to investigate or prosecute. They are far too busy suing the states for having the audacity to enforce state and federal laws and for trying to ensure free and fair elections. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:54 | 2685437 Carl Spackler
Carl Spackler's picture

Start the Congressional hearings and bring forth the tangible evidence.

Have a U.S. Attorney open an investigation or two.

Somebody start doing something.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 23:32 | 2686647 Buck Johnson
Buck Johnson's picture

I remember the media didn't go to deeply into the whole process with Delphi.  This is just plain horrible, truly horrible.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:07 | 2684686 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"Turns out they lied... Under oath."

Doesn't matter. It was a "national security issue".

See how easy that is? Try it yourself. It's fun and easy and after you get past that sick feeling in your stomach, the power rush to the head is breathtaking.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:10 | 2684703 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

"Turns out they lied... Under oath."

Easy to lie when a) you don't believe in God and/or b) you believe you have immunity from authority on Earth and c) a douchebag.

Geithner probably fits in two of those three camps. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:15 | 2684720 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Tyranny breeds even more tyranny in the ultimate positive feedback loop.

Exponential bitches.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:22 | 2684742 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Time has come to interupt the "loop".

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”
~ John Locke

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:34 | 2684813 saturn
saturn's picture

Sure, but the are about to take ppls guns, lol. Can you kill with a gaze? :)

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:39 | 2684846 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

That I am convinced would be a blood bath on both sides.  Over 100 million gun owners in the United States, with more guns in private hands then the entire US population and billions of rounds of ammunition for those guns.  Molon Labe.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:57 | 2684893 DeadFred
DeadFred's picture

My guns were lost with my gold in that boating accident. I suspect many others have met similar fates.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 18:17 | 2685967 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

My guns are cleaned, zeroed, loaded and readily available for use.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:02 | 2684915 Widowmaker
Widowmaker's picture

King Fag Bloomberg Blowhard is trying to outlaw assault hands, battery rocks, and sticks of terror, too.

Come on, lets have a REAL conversation about guns - I mean a real one where it is painfully clear guns are the only reason US society has any sort of order.   Really real conversation, come on. - no tears this time.

Those trying to remove guns will only remove themselves - that is a fact.


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:23 | 2684996 t0mmyBerg
t0mmyBerg's picture

You might be able to kill with a word.  Muad'Dib 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:18 | 2685154 viahj
viahj's picture

or a picture of Janet Reno

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:21 | 2684739's picture

I don't believe in God and I find no value in lying. Turns out that there are rational reasons for engaging in responsible behavior which provide more reliable motivation for one to behave ethically than the prospect of imaginary hellfire.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:31 | 2684802 Agent P
Agent P's picture


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:33 | 2684808 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Where did those rational reasons come from? The natural rules that they are subject to, where did those come from?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:11 | 2684853's picture

I don't know what set the world to spinning but that doesn't mean that it was made by an invisible man who flies in the sky forever. If you don't know something it is far more reasonable and honest to admit that you don't know rather than to make up a story about it. If you want to believe in the invisible man that's fine with me but I found it necessary to point out the error made above regarding the ease with which atheists supposedly lie.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:46 | 2685076 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

I think it's important to keep your beliefs private (since no one asked you), but since you decided to insult others; before I point out to you that God created all and doesn't need to fly in the sky he created, and one day all that will be proven to you in your everlasting sadness. Really sad since you think life sprang from a rock! Talk about nuts. What a fairy tale.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:51 | 2685101's picture

Shizzmoney said that atheists lie. I responded to that insult. Why don't you tell him to keep his beliefs private?


Really sad since you think life sprang from a rock! Talk about nuts.


I never said that. Why do you find it necessary to lie in order to promote your beliefs?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:34 | 2685178 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Shizzmoney said that atheists lie.


He actually said that it's easy to lie if you don't believe in God, but your translation of his words is fair.  I'm a believer, and it troubles me greatly when others somehow associate being a believer with being immune to immoral behaviors, as Shizzmoney did.  (There is no difference, for all have sinned... Rom 3-23). 

My great hope is for all to believe, but statements that fail to acknowledge our common condition - the thing that gives rise to (in my view) the need for God - simply gives others a reason to tune out.  

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:47 | 2685218's picture

Hi Mayhem. Thanks for your insight and reasonable response. May God bless you and yours.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:36 | 2685189 object_orient
object_orient's picture

 Why are you dedicating your life to blasphemy?

Don't worry sweetheart. If I'm wrong I'll recant on my deathbed.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:58 | 2685257 object_orient
object_orient's picture

Furthermore, could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:04 | 2685263 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

Of course you said that. If you don't believe in God, life comes from a rock. Where else - an alien? Then where did the Alien come from? A rock. If you don't believe in God there is no other possible explanation for life except that life magically sprang from a rock one day.

I never said that. Why do you find it necessary to lie in order to promote your beliefs?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:22 | 2685306's picture


Of course you said that.


No I didn't. Anybody here can read what I wrote and know that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. To what end I can not imagine.


Wed, 08/08/2012 - 12:24 | 2687963 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

"... invisible man who flies in the sky forever"

That's good that you don't believe in Zeus, I was wondering about a creator. This might just be over your head. Using a strawman to project your insecurities isn't rational or enlightened. That is the source of your anger. Peace out.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:13 | 2684955 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

Nice try but you're missing out on one of the great benefits of the Godless worldview, that you are entirely free to live amorally and only for yourself. If you don't start doing that soon, you won't discover what a hell that is, and won't be impelled to finally look for God. Then because you are not looking you won't discover Him and you'll have to spend the remainder of your days ignoring 90% of your experiences because they are not integratable within your materialist smarty-pants worldview. Voltaire gets boring after awhile after all. Been there. You better get started. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:47 | 2685082's picture

Nice try but you're missing out on one of the great benefits of the Godless worldview, that you are entirely free to live amorally and only for yourself. If you don't start doing that soon, you won't discover what a hell that is, and won't be impelled to finally look for God.


Check your premises. There is no benefit to unethical, immoral or unprincipled living. Why do you believe that there is?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:28 | 2685171 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

+1, Can't upvote cause you started with italics


The existence and specific characteristics of an ethical community precedes all discussions of what is ethical for the members of that community. Christians think they are ethical, maybe within their own heads they are - through fantasy and denial. In reality, not any more than Maori, Lao, Saami, Hopi, Nahua, or anyone else. But it's okay, because they have a blatantly henotheist god which has since been continously in a process being retconned into some kind of kindergarten-grade monotheote by a 4th century Roman emperor's theological descendants, and he's better than your god or gods!

If I wanted to be told how to live, how to think, what to do, who to marry, and everything else, I'd stick with a more consistent and committed religious tradition, such as Islam (as revealed by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him). Too bad I'm just a lying ...something or other, doesn't matter what because it doesn't involve kneeling before ICRI, the only Christian who ever lived, and he died on the cross.

But they did write some great music, so there's that.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:51 | 2685239 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



True Christians recognize themselves as no more ethical than anyone else (thus the need for Christ).  Those who are self-righteous and proclaim to be Christians are denying their reliance on Him.  It disturbs me to no end when people claim to be Christian but also come across as self righteous.  That serves only as an impediment to others discovering the one and only empty tomb.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:27 | 2686732 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Faith without works is dead:,

alleviate some suffering.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:28 | 2685172 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

There is no benefit to unethical, immoral or unprincipled living. Why do you believe that there is?

Patently false.  See generally, wall street.  Aside from extrinsic gain, there are also some who are intrinsically motivated...  be it power, control, or even the competition... 

And to pick a bone with the poster above you, these are exactly the same things done by god fearing/following people...  day after day, time and time again...  You might claim that they don't follow the path of god, but wasn't the entire purpose of the myth of the immaculate conception necessary to explain humans' falliability?  In other words, why hold atheists to a higher standard than god's true believers are capable of following...  presuming it takes god's son to be free of sin...???

Now, do you need to reference a celestial being to have a moral code?  Nope...  pure and total propaganda pushed by those who make a living off god...  or their unquestioning followers.  Realistically, all it takes is consistency and the ability to empathize.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:19 | 2685245's picture


There is no benefit to unethical, immoral or unprincipled living. Why do you believe that there is?

Patently false.  See generally, wall street.  Aside from extrinsic gain, there are also some who are intrinsically motivated...  be it power, control, or even the competition...


Unprincipled behavior may lead to what appear to be short term gains but this is at the expense of long term losses. Wall Street can gut the goose to procure a golden egg but in the process they destroy the means to produce additional golden eggs. Man lives three score and ten years on this ball of mud and such a timeline requires one to eschew high time preference activities in favor of low time preference activities. As Matthew wrote, "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? "

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:22 | 2685548 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

A.  There is no soul.

B.  There have been generations of wall streeters grow old and die, having lived the lives of kings...  on this unethical, immoral or unprincipled living...  Yes, I agree, there is always a day of reckoning...  it just might be long after you're dead (and have lived it up).  And it isn't fair to lay blame at wall street in particular...  there are plenty of dens of vipers and thieves so to speak.  In other words, the fact that there may be long term losses does not disincentivize these types of people from behaving as they do...  (and I dare say most of them are members of a church or at least self identify with a particular main stream religion).

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:01 | 2685613's picture


There is no soul.


Atheism does not preclude the use of metaphor.


the fact that there may be long term losses does not disincentivize these types of people from behaving as they do


Some people willingly chose to pursue goals which degrade their humanity. Some enjoy their degradation and wear it like a kingly raiment. But corruption it remains and rational individuals will avoid such activity.



Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:27 | 2687286 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

So it's irrational to KNOW that you're above the law and then break the law for your own personal benefit?  I think you've missed the boat on the notion of individual autonomy...  it's only irrational if humans are to be held to some collective standard...  that humans are FORCED to improve the world rather than pursue our own selfish desires...  you're playing with fire on that theory...  (it also never works, regardless of the best laid plans).

This notion of "humanity" is pretty thinly veiled...

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:54 | 2685243 object_orient
object_orient's picture

I can't figure out if you missed the <sarc> tag or your're serious.

Are you really encouraging a godless person, now living a moral life (I presume), to start an amoral bender so he will hit rock bottom and join your fold?

In my neighborhood there's a bunch of born-again former meth addicts who ride their bikes around the block and yell out "Praise the Lord!" while flashing their toothless smiles. They seem like nice-enough people, but is that what you have in mind for us non-belivers?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:58 | 2685642 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

"Turns out that there are rational reasons for engaging in responsible behavior which provide more reliable motivation for one to behave ethically"

Purely subjective. One man's trash is another's gold. Secondly, we are not just talking about unethical behavior. We are talking about people in certain positions throwing out the rule of law to benefit of a few.

Unfortunately, the rule of law is being circumvented to discourage some from breaking the law and also the redress of unlawful behavior. That why laws are there. They provide a line in the sand which says, you may not think your behavior is improper, but society does, thus if you commit this action, you face these consequences. No consequences translates into more corrupt behavior





Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:35 | 2684821 CCanuck
CCanuck's picture

Geithner leads those three camps.

Fixed it for ya.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:37 | 2684835 Nobody For President
Nobody For President's picture

Geithner probably fits in two of those three camps. 


Hell, I have the over on 3 of 3.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:35 | 2684818 LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

yep and, (just like Fast and Furious), anyone trying to dig deeper will envoke "executive priviledge" from the Oval Office.



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:36 | 2684826 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

And if the national security thing won't seem to fly there is always the "I can't be expected to know what my underlings are doing. I had no knowledge of it". Or if Obama is re-elected, Eric Holder will simply choose not to investigate the matter. Problem solved.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:15 | 2684960 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

He'll do a "Reno" where every thing asked of him cannot be revealed becuase the matter is "under investigation." He has already pulled this tactic several times, sucha s Fast and Furious. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:37 | 2684831 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

We each have our favorite themes. This one of yours gets and gives a lot of mileage. We see them toy at it here and there (like when we hear about various ways they lied on banking reports during the financial crisis of 2008-09, we hear it was done to protect the system) but we have not heard too much yet invoking it directly (though the stuff with JPM and trying to limit the scope of the inquiries into their records starts to smell like it could go there).

I think you are right, it will come. It slithers so easily off their tongues, out of their mouths, and into our brains, like the mind controlling eels from "The Wrath of Kahn.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:19 | 2684923 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

"...but we have not heard too much yet invoking it directly...."

Maybe not so much in "public", but most definitely it (the national security excuse) has been and is being used directly and overtly in hundreds of legal briefs and court pleas to have information excluded from consideration of a court case or to have someone convicted without the need to show the evidence. And in the overwhelming majority of these cases the judge and jury have deferred to "father knows best". National security creep is what I call it.

Precedent is being set in stone and the slippery slope is greased and working just fine.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:08 | 2684691 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

"This has been the most fucking transparent Treasury office in the fucking history of the fucking United States of fucking America."

- Tim Geithner to Neil Barofsky. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:49 | 2684872 perchprism
perchprism's picture



Actually, it was " ...history of the United fucking States of fucking America."

It's nice how these clowns respect the country they "serve" so well.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:03 | 2684916 LMAOLORI
LMAOLORI's picture



"This has been the most fucking transparent Treasury office in the fucking history of the fucking United States of fucking America."






Wall Street’s Collapse To Be Mystery Forever: Jonathan Weil

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:52 | 2685103 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture



Once again Obama-puppets words/speeches do not equal his actions...


GAI said that President Obama’s decision to choose Holder, “a white-collar defense attorney from Covington,” as his attorney general, over a “more fiery prosecutor,” appears to have sent “a subtle signal to the financial community” that this administration isn’t going to actually do anything, despite the harsh words.

Cole, the report outlines, was with Bryan Cave LLP — “a white-shoe firm with A-list clients” — before becoming Holder’s right-hand man at the DOJ. One of Cole’s clients while at Bryan Cave LLP, the GAI report shows, was insurance and financial giant AIG.

Cole had done $20 million worth of work for AIG between 2004 and 2008, but his close ties with the company — which was “at the heart of the financial crisis largely because of its noncompliance in regulatory and compliance issues” — didn’t stop Obama or Holder from welcoming him aboard their administration.

excerpt from: Report: Cronyism, political donations likely behind Obama, Holder failure to charge any bankers after 2008 financial meltdown
Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:08 | 2684693 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

typical lying thieving banker

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:09 | 2684695 Atlantis Consigliore
Atlantis Consigliore's picture

Rule no 1; steal, steal as much as you can as fast as you can,

a crises is not to be wasted, steal, thats when the new govt comes in,

and when the govt gets thrown out, STEAL, 


watch the collapse after nov. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:09 | 2684696 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

America went down the drain when Reagan destroyed the Unions.

Wages remained stagnant ever since.

And people hate unions... and it's actually the unions who created the wealth of America.


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:23 | 2684758 insanelysane
insanelysane's picture

The next time a unionized worker invents something or figures out how to do something efficiently will be the first time.  Unions protect the lazy workers and keep the ambitious workers from profiting.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:54 | 2684886 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Actually the ambitious workers are attacked and have thier property damaged if they work to hard. They are called "job Killers" because if they perform thier job in a timely manner they are taking the place of 3 lazy union workers so they have killed 2 lazy jobs by having some self respect and delivering an honest days work for an honest days pay.

There was a day and a time when unionS were critical to job safety, fairness etc..... but the coin is flipped now and they are the longer the solution as jobs flee our country. Union wages have raised the standard of living for themselves by making the rest of us pay thier exorbitant salaries, benefits, extortion, and rediculous antics in the job place. Just look at GSA and its union with our tax dollars. Look at the jobs chased overseas by unions, look at the flourishing right to work states over the unionized states. I see no one working at toyota, honda etc.... living in abject poverty as the unions would like you to believe.

The evidence surrounds us.....and this article is simply more of it.   WAKE UP FOLKS!!!

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:07 | 2684933 ONO47
ONO47's picture

As a former Teamster(live in MD, have to pay dues or not have the job) you hit that right on the head. Spent many days doing my job and finishing the work some lazy POS.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:33 | 2685732 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

you guys only engage in short term logic.   As in, hey this affects me right now, right here! Instead of seeing the bigger picture and history of mistreatment of non organized labor.

You stand and complain yet never fought to obtain any of those favorable conditions you take for granted.


You really think all those union gains in the workplace will just stick around without unions..? Are you fucking dip shit stupid?



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:41 | 2685750 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

And doubleguns is another ignorant fool..  Have you seen the chart on CEO to worker pay ratio since the war on unions??  You really think a race to the bottom on labor wages is the answer? 


Why don't you look at it the other way..  why are non union wages so shitty?  Since they are sheep that is why and have no voice.



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:37 | 2685176 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

"The next time a unionized worker invents something or figures out how to do something efficiently will be the first time.  Unions protect the lazy workers and keep the ambitious workers from profiting."

I would agree with you now....but let's all remember that unions came about because the workers got tired of being abused, killed, driven like slaves, their 6 year old children going to the mines, getting much more than the FDA required amount of rat shit and pubic hairs in their hot dogs...etc...etc.

If you do not police the economic philosophy you approve the most (capitalism) and you allow rampant corruption and inhumane working conditions then what the hell do you expect to happen.

Those industrial titans made the ground fertile for the unions to come about....regardless that they in turn became as corrupt as their overlords were to begin with.....but we could have gone a long way to making the union argument less legitimate in the first place.

Actions have consequences.



Wed, 08/08/2012 - 13:40 | 2684765 Tippoo Sultan
Tippoo Sultan's picture

The only "wealth" being "created" ( i.e., reaped ) by a union at the present time is that of the guaranteed CoLAs -- for both salary and pension.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:25 | 2684767's picture

That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the changes in the United States from 1800 through 1900 when there was little to no unionization. The nation when from an agrarian backwater to a modern society with mass transit, telecommunication and a world class military.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:32 | 2684793 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

The U.S. had a world class military in 1900?  No, that would be Germany.  More revisionist history - FAIL   By the way, many of those Germans came to America in the first half of the next century (1900-1950), then America had a first class military.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:46 | 2684865's picture

Are you suggesting that there can only be one nation with a world class military at a given time? And have you ever heard of the Great White Fleet?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:59 | 2684889 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

A single fleet does not make a world class military.  Ever hear of the hydrogen bomb (developed in the U.S. by Germans who defected to America ahead of and during WWII)?  The banking class does appreciate your ignorance however.  You are the one who specifically cited the 1800-1900 timeperiod, not me.  

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:56 | 2684992's picture

The United States had a world class military at the beginning of the twentieth century and that's a historical fact.  By 1903 the US Navy had deployed 11 battleships and 19 cruisers and occupied Cuba, the Philippines and parts of China. Your suggestion that the US didn't have a world class military in 1900 because 50 years later some scientists of German descent helped create the hydrogen bomb is a bizarre non sequitor.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:41 | 2685199 Broccoli
Broccoli's picture

At the end of the Civil War the US had the most powerful army in the world with limited ability for power projection. The best equipment, best training, etc. With the Great White Fleet we combined the most powerful army with a decent navy, this navy would go on to surpass the British navy even before WWII. So yea I agree with you and would say most of the progress happened between 1860 to 1920. WWII just proved the point, and no domestic infrastructure damage was icing on the cake which accounted for unprecedented economic growth from 1950 to 1970.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:52 | 2685240 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Yep they did it all by themselves with 100% German science and math, German manpower, German resources, German equipment, and German fissile materials mined in Germany by Germans ... for some reason working in America. Bohr, Fermi, Oppenheimer, and countless others, they are part of my ignorant imagination!

Atomic physics is 100% German and if you don't believe me you're a ZIONIST JEW!


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:48 | 2685223 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the changes in the United States from 1800 through 1900 when there was little to no unionization. The nation when from an agrarian backwater to a modern society with mass transit, telecommunication and a world class military.

UH HUH....that's right...because we had true competition.....towards the end of the century came the croynism and monopolistic rapacious capitlism which spawned the inevitable backlash.....represented in large part by the formation of unions.

If you don't want the disease.....don't engage in the behavior which makes it more likely you will get the disease.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:07 | 2685277's picture

In 1905 Henry Ford was paying his non-unionized workers $5 a day in gold backed money. That's the current equivalent of $400 day.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:21 | 2685546 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

GREAT !!!!!  You could come up with only ONE example of a do-gooder capitalist during that time period. 

WHO....just so happened to be a Nazi Sympathizer.


So sorry !!!  Try again.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:02 | 2685640's picture

And you haven't given a single example of the "rapacious capitalism" which you mentioned although your exquisite use of exclamation points almost negates the otherwise vacuous character of your argument. I wish that I could think up exclamation points like that.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:48 | 2685765 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Unions actual pay is not high.  They were smart to ask for tangible things like health care, etc INSTEAD of raises.  That would be considered a fine investment choice by this crowd correct?  But they are dirty labor workers so we won't give them credit on shunning short term fiat gain and wisely picking the commodity play


And that is what this crowd really boils down to. They hate the whole simple family man working class.



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 18:49 | 2685861's picture

No. You hate the working class because they are human beings. You can't stand to see anything live and thrive if you can't control and profit from it.

Employers have an amount of compensation which they can exchange for labor. You can receive it in cash or you can take it in benefits but "holding  out" for benefits and refusing extra cash doesn't change the amount which your employer has with which to compensate you. However the labor union scam does funnel lots of cash to union leaders, politicians and organized crime and that money is definitely not available to the worker.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 20:26 | 2686301 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

"However the labor union scam does funnel lots of cash to union leaders, politicians and organized crime and that money is definitely not available to the worker."

I'm sorry....I dosed off.....I could have sworn you said.....

"However the International Bankster scam does funnel lots of cash to the CEO's who outsource and offshore American Jobs to foreigners, politicians and organized crime and that money is definitely not available to the worker."

There.....fixed it for you.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 23:46 | 2686668's picture

It's possible for two different groups to scam you at the same time or didn't you realize that?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 20:20 | 2686285 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

"And you haven't given a single example of the "rapacious capitalism" which you mentioned although your exquisite use of exclamation points almost negates the otherwise vacuous character of your argument. I wish that I could think up exclamation points like that."


I do this just because Wikipedia made it easier for me to remember EVERYONE I grew up learning about in history class....

List of businessmen who were called robber barons


West Virginia

Photo of coal miners in West Virginia, 1908

In 1883, thousands of European immigrants and a large number of African Americans migrated to southern West Virginia to work in coal mines. These coal miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. Along with these expenses, the miners were deducted pay for housing rent and items they purchased from company stores. Furthermore, the coal companies went as far as creating their own monetary system so the miners could only shop at company owned stores.[24]

In addition with the poor economic condition, safety in the mines was a great concern. West Virginia fell behind other states in regulating mining conditions. Between 1890 and 1912, West Virginia had a higher mine death rate than any other state. In fact, West Virginia is the site of the worst coal mining disaster to date, the Monongah Mining disaster of Monongah, West Virginia 6 December 1907. This explosion was caused by the ignition of methane gas (also called "firedamp"), which in turn ignited the coal dust. The lives of 362 men were lost in the underground explosion. As a result, this disaster impelled the United States Congress to create the Bureau of Mines.[25]

As a result to the poor working conditions and very low wages, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) was formed in Columbus, Ohio in 1890

Time to either wake up and learn some history about your precious religion, capitalism.....which although MUCH BETTER than simply a man made ISM....NOT A RELIGION.....IT TAKES HONEST, ETHICAL AND MORAL MEN TO MAINTAIN IT......

Or just go back to pulling your pud and playing X-Box in your mother's basement !

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 23:54 | 2686689's picture

Time for you to realize that the government schools taught you lies. For example, JJ Hill built a railroad that benefited his stockholders, employees and customers. He didn't rob anyone.


Most business historians have assumed that the transcontinental railroads would never have been built without government subsidies. The free market would have failed to provide the adequate capital, or so the theory asserts. The evidence for this theory is that the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, which were completed in the years after the War Between the States, received per-mile subsidies from the federal government in the form of low-interest loans as well as massive land grants. But there need not be cause and effect here: the subsidies were not needed to cause the transcontinental railroads to be built. We know this because, just as many roads and canals were privately financed in the early nineteenth century, a market entrepreneur built his own transcontinental railroad. James J. Hill built the Great Northern Railroad "without any government aid, even the right of way, through hundreds of miles of public lands, being paid for in cash," as Hill himself stated.[2]

Quite naturally, Hill strongly opposed government favors to his competitors: "The government should not furnish capital to these companies, in addition to their enormous land subsidies, to enable them to conduct their business in competition with enterprises that have received no aid from the public treasury," he wrote.[3] This may sound quaint by today's standards, but it was still a hotly debated issue in the late nineteenth century.

James J. Hill was hardly a "baron" or aristocrat. His father died when he was fourteen, so he dropped out of school to work in a grocery store for four dollars a month to help support his widowed mother. As a young adult he worked in the farming, shipping, steamship, fur-trading, and railroad industries. He learned the ways of business in these settings, saved his money, and eventually became an investor and manager of his own enterprises.[4] (It was much easier to accomplish such things in the days before income taxation.)

Hill got his start in the railroad business when he and several partners purchased a bankrupted Minnesota railroad that had been run into the ground by the government-subsidized Northern Pacific (NP). The NP had been a patronage "reward" to financier Jay Cooke, who in the War Between the States had been one of the Union's leading financiers.[5] But Cooke and his NP associates built recklessly; the government's subsidies and land grants were issued on a per-mile-of-track basis, so Cooke and his cohorts had strong incentives to build as quickly as possible, which only encouraged shoddy work. Consequently, by 1873 the NP developers had fallen into bankruptcy.[6] The people of Minnesota and the Dakotas, where the railroad was being built, considered Cooke and his business associates to be "derelicts at best and thieves at worst," writes Hill biographer Michael P. Malone.[7]

It took Hill and his business partners five years to complete the purchase of the railroad (the St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba), which would form the nucleus of a road that he would eventually build all the way to the Pacific (the Great Northern). He had nothing but contempt for Cooke and the NP for their shady practices and corruption, and he quickly demonstrated a genius for railroad construction. Under his direction, the workers began laying rails twice as quickly as the NP crews had, and even at that speed he built what everyone at the time considered to be the highest-quality line. Hill micromanaged every aspect of the work, even going so far as to spell workers so they could take much-needed coffee breaks.[8] His efficiency extended into meticulous cost cutting. He passed his cost reductions on to his customers in the form of lower rates because he knew that the farmers, miners, timber interests, and others who used his rail services would succeed or fail along with him. His motto was: "We have got to prosper with you or we have got to be poor with you."[9]

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:50 | 2687596 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

James J. Hill.

Because of his previous experiences in shipping and fuel supply, Hill was able to enter both the coal and steamboat businesses. In 1873, he entered the steamboat business and by 1879 he had a local monopoly by merging (with Norman Kittson). In 1867, Hill entered the coal business, and by 1879 it had expanded five times over, giving Hill a local monopoly in the anthracite coal business.

Hill undertook to establish a monopoly of the steamboat business; he was monopolizing coal, socializing with bankers, and buying other businesses at the same time.

Part of Hill's success during the depression also was due to repeatedly cutting his employees' wages, although this was during a time of deflation when prices were falling generally. That, and his hard micromanaging practices, eventually led to a railway-wide strike and the workers' unionization under the leadership of Eugene V. Debs. Hill and Debs agreed to arbitration by other business owners led by Charles Alfred Pillsbury. The result was restoration of the workers' wages to pre-depression levels.

With 1901 and the start of the new century, James Hill now had control of both the Great Northern Railway, and the Northern Pacific (which he had obtained with the help of his friend J. P. Morgan, when that railroad went bankrupt in the depression of the mid-1890s). Hill also wanted control of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad because of its Midwestern lines and access to Chicago. The Union Pacific Railroad was the biggest competitor of Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railroads. Although Great Northern and Northern Pacific were backed by J. P. Morgan and James J. Hill, the Union Pacific was backed not only by its president, Edward H. Harriman, but by the extremely powerful William Rockefeller and Jacob Schiff.

Quietly, Harriman began buying stock in Northern Pacific with the intention of gaining control of Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy. He was within 40,000 shares of control when Hill learned of Harriman's activities and quickly contacted J. P. Morgan, who was on vacation in Europe at the time. Morgan, acting on behalf of his friend, ordered his men to buy everything they could get their hands on.

The result was chaos on Wall Street. Northern Pacific stock was forced up to $1,000 per share. Many speculators, who had sold Northern Pacific "short" in the anticipation of a drop in the railroad's price, faced ruin. The threat of a real economic panic loomed. Neither side could win a distinct advantage, and the parties soon realized that a truce would have to be called. The winners of that truce were Hill and Morgan, who immediately formed the Northern Securities Company with the aim of tying together their three major rail lines (Ironically, the Burlington Route, Northern Pacific, and Great Northern would later merge in 1970 to form the Burlington Northern Railroad). Unfortunately for the Hill-Morgan alliance, on the same day they formed the Northern Securities Company, President William McKinley was assassinated, placing Theodore Roosevelt—the "trust-buster"—in the office of President.

Perhaps Hill was not a TYPICAL robber baron.....his briefly detailed here....showed he wanted what every big capitalist control of their market in order to better fix prices for maximum profit at all costs.

And the Mises institute is CERTAINLY not the best place for a balanced historical look at capitalism and/or capitalists.  Referencing them would be like asking a staunchly Catholic Archbishop to give an honest opinion of the Catholic Church....the Pope....or the Pedophile Scandal.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:27 | 2684776 madcows
madcows's picture

It looks like most people don't agree with you.

Unions hold jobs hostage.  Unions launder money.  Unions are a crime syndicate.  No more.  No less.

Wages are stagnant b/c we are now competing with China.

People hate unions b/c they steal from the workers in order to better themselves and their hired corrupt-icians

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:29 | 2685021 Thisson
Thisson's picture

It's important to distinguish between public and private unions on this point.  FYI, many of the traditional benefits provided by private unions are now provided by statutes, so the role of private unions is not as crucial as it once was. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 13:57 | 2685237 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

People hate unions b/c they steal from the workers in order to better themselves and their hired corrupt-icians

I agree with you 100%.......but you are still a fucking idiot.



Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:55 | 2685779 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

And you think globalization isn't ushering in those tactics all over again?  For the sake of competition?? what a farce as CEO bonuses soar

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 16:53 | 2685777 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Let's continue with your logic with the race to the bottom on wages... ok fast forward to slave labor.. I win

until you admit slave labor is the best in competing with X country then shut your junk logic.


You do know that China is losing jobs to those cheaper wage countries near it now right?  So are we competing with Vietnam now?


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:06 | 2684778 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

You are being far too optimistic, the purchasing power of the average American has been getting crushed for 30+ years.  Apparently most people vote in favor of debt servitude.  Here's a hint, don't be average.   Morons, junk if you think your dollars buy more than it did even 20+ years ago.  Stupid fucking sheep.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:04 | 2685274 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

They vote in favor of near-term handouts at the expense of long term ... everything. Like drug and gambling addicts. You'd be lucky to find one whose eyes don't glaze over like the top of fresh donut when you ask them what has happened to dollar purchasing power, or why treasuries rates are so low, or what ZIRP stands for, or who Jon Corzine is, or what LIBOR is, or anything else that might signal the slightest interest in anything beyond their stupid little petit-bourgeois consumerist lives.

Yeah, tell the 25yo grocery store manager he's an evil fascist prick for raising prices on staple goods - while holding your fake-real Chinese-made Prada bag with your Chinese-made iPhone 4, 5 credit cards with API between 5% and 25%, and a wallet full of benny bucks. Absolutely no connections between any of these things. All that asshole manager's fault cause he's a greedy capitalist pig. Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:45 | 2684828 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture


"And people hate unions... and it's actually the unions who created the wealth of America."


Do you think ther might be a reason for that? Maybe it's because they are just as corrupt as the bankers and the politicians. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that it takes two over paid union workers to do the work of one person. Or how about the fact that unions protect the lazy a shiftless so that the employer has to jump through hoops to let a destructive non-productive person go? What about the fact that unions reward those who have time in instead of those who are productive?

I worked in a union for a while and I found their practices to be repulsive. I couldn't stand the " we have to slow down and make this job last" attitude.




Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:51 | 2684879 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

The problem is not the Unions. The problem is that ALL workers, union or non union, should be paid enough to pay their bills and provide for their families. The disparity of wealth in America, caused by the Bankers, is the problem.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:32 | 2685031 Thisson
Thisson's picture

NONSENSE.  All wages should be determined by a free market.  Moreover, all jobs are not MEANT to provide for a family.  What about jobs for students who just need a little spare cash for books or socializing?  Minimum wage regimes destroy such jobs.  There are many jobs which are only efficient at low wages.  Those low wages can still provide someone with a benefit who would not otherwise have such a benefit.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:36 | 2685583 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

Exactly.  Unions are detrimental to a healthy economic system.  They were a band-aide fix to wage fixing collusion. 

True capitalism requires free association and free contracting between worker and employer.  If a worker agrees to to work for $0.05/hour they should be allowed too.  They should also be able to change the agreement at any time, and demand a new wage.  The employer has the choice to pay or let them go and find someone else.  A person's knowledge, skill and reputation will determine their value to an employer, as will the employers need and the pool of similarly knowledgeable, skilled and reputable people available for hire.

The industrial revolution was a false form of capitalism because for the most part "capital" colluded to suppress the rights of labor.  Free association works, but both parties need to be free.

Under this system you could even have "collective bargaining" if all parties agreed to have it.  Even if all the workers wanted to bargain together they could do so but under no circumstances should they force people to join the collective deal, though the employer could make such a thing a condition of employment.  The key is free association, coercion needs to illegal and enforced (contradiction but... such is the rule of law...).  True rule of law can make this system work but maintaining an independent judiciary is a difficult task.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 20:42 | 2686334 Jumbotron
Jumbotron's picture

Thissen said...."NONSENSE.  All wages should be determined by a free market."








Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:21 | 2685542 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 much more acceptable to the ruling elite is to

portray the problem as Labor organizing


vilify and thwart any collective endeavor on the part of Labor to counter TBTF interests.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:58 | 2684896 explodinghead
explodinghead's picture

I think Unions in the beginning were essential for gains in safety and wages for workers and helped build the middle class in the country.   Now like every other power structure in the country they are just organized crime syndicates.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:51 | 2684882 Greenhead
Greenhead's picture

Sure, let's have a cartel and creat barriers to entry and protect that position in the cartel by using violence. If that doesn't work, try political chicanery to keep that cartel in operation.  Use that to drive up the price of labor and then, really complain when jobs get offshored.


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 15:44 | 2684908 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 The Unity of Labor has been blocked ever since the Red Scare after WW1. Once the IWW (Wobblies) and 'sympathetic' strikes were outlawed, trade unions became the norm.

Trade unions are designed to narrowly work for select workers, and only for wage increases and benefits.

Although some good was done by trade unions in selectively obtaining decent wages and working conditions, in general, Labor was blocked.

Divide and conquer has been "successful". Wealth inequity has increased. People engage in disputes over the scraps, over who deserves good pay. People have come to disparage unions as only being in it for themselves - which they are, and have been made to be. Collective organized action by Labor against TPTB is effectively put off the table.

Forgotten is the possibility that Labor unionization and unity could be and should be 'in it' for the 99%,

(and used to be)


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:12 | 2684705 scatterbrains
scatterbrains's picture

20,000?   and not a single Joe Stack among them ? Pussies!

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:10 | 2684706 ReeferMac
ReeferMac's picture

Long Pitchforks and Tar.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:11 | 2684709 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

The "oath" stated, "So Help Me God" ... and ... Just like Obozo's oath did not state, "So Help Me Allah". So the oath did not count.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:20 | 2684740 magpie
magpie's picture

He took the oath twice didn't he.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:44 | 2684856 nathan1234
nathan1234's picture

His prayer is the Kol Nidre.

Read the English translation and you will understand that oaths mean a damn to him

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:30 | 2684797's picture

You have to be crazy to believe that Obama is a Muslim. It's a childish fantasy based on the foolish calculation that Muslim are bad and Obama is bad so Obama is a Muslim. And if he is a Muslim then I guess that some folks owe Obama an apology for attacking him over the teaching of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:45 | 2684862 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Take your butt to the C-Span video archive and you will find several videos BY OBOZO in which he states that he is MUSLIM.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:48 | 2684870's picture

How about a link? I'm not particularly interested in chasing wild geese.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:50 | 2684878 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Do your own goddamn research, like I did.  If you weren't so damn lazy you would not be so misinformed and ready to spout the typical pseudo-intellectual denials.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:25 | 2685004's picture

But Obama is not a Muslim and so there is no evidence to find. That makes you either a liar or a fool. No wonder you refuse to put up or shut up.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:41 | 2685068 Thisson
Thisson's picture

Your claim that Obama admitted to being a muslim is false:

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:12 | 2684710 john_connor
john_connor's picture


Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:12 | 2684711 Jlmadyson
Jlmadyson's picture

There is no justice. There is no liberty.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:21 | 2684749 Agent P
Agent P's picture

certainly not "for all"

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:00 | 2684906 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Without justice there will be no liberty.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:12 | 2685290's picture

Liberty is the precursor to justice, not the other way around. Justice doesn't simply fall from the sky, it must be brought into existence by the actions of free and principled individuals.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 14:00 | 2685259 Clark Bent
Clark Bent's picture

Neither are entirely possible in this veil of tears. But Liberty IS a necessary condition for the possibility of justice. This is reversed under the "social justice" model where justice is redefined as special favor for some based on dubious justifications. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:13 | 2684714 Kastorsky
Kastorsky's picture

Feldman + Bloom = ZOG

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:19 | 2684738 Agent P
Agent P's picture

Lying AND protecting unions?  Who could have seen that coming?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:20 | 2684741 firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

WTI spiking cause the sun rose from the east.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:27 | 2684779 magpie
magpie's picture

Russian interior minister's FB post ?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:22 | 2684751 Zen Bernanke
Zen Bernanke's picture

it would be nice to see an actual indictment and prosecution, but as usual, nothing will come of this revelation. 

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:09 | 2684944 azlibertarian
azlibertarian's picture

Indictments? Prosecutions? That Jon Corzine walks the streets today is evidence that there will be no such thing.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:28 | 2684753 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Great point, Sudden Debt.

And people hate unions... and it's actually the unions who created the wealth of America.

On top of that, thanks to the childish behavior of the money changers, the unions became more corrupt and relied on Wall St bankers and lawyers much more when unions were getting eliminated left and right. 

Instead of demanding change of the political spectrum, the unions actually doubled down and realized they had to play the game harder by the rules, rather than change them.

In a sense, big unions got "financialized" along with everything else.  Instead of your work, involvement, and your support being the key cog of a union organization, it was union "dues" that went towards the top of the union boards, lawyers, and lobbyists that was the priority. 

Have a great idea that can make workers more productive, enjoy more security, and improve worklife? You are going to have to buy a Union Head to listen to you, then buy a Lobbyist who buys a Congressman to make that happen. 

In a sense, unions should be AGAINST big government because it is big government that makes it harder for them to improve conditions (because big govt tends to favor big business).  What unions should demand is better, smaller government.......of course, humans are lazy, so the majority of them use the good ole, "we'll give you votes as long as you keep/give the union jobs"...promoting scarcity......which is kind of everything unions (at least the idea of them) are against.  Everyone can't scratch each other's backs, forever, which someone's back getting slashed.

The reason why Timmy and the Govt axed the Delphi non-union pension?  It wasn't some "leftist payback" to those who didn't want to be a part of the union system (which IS those worker's right) was because Timmy and Co. knew it was a slam dunk to ax the pensions because of the fact that the non-union folk can't afford the laywers to duke it out over court with the government over a civil suit.

I'm also amazed at the bashing of unions (at least the theory, not the organizations today themselves, which some have become amazing corrupt) by libertarians who fawn over Constitutional Values.  Considering the fact that, you know, there is this thing called, "Freedom of Assembly" in there.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 11:37 | 2684833's picture

Unions can not exist without big government. Those who own and operate businesses are forced to negotiate with unions due to the Wagner Act.

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:33 | 2685036 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

contracts are always adhered to, right?

Tue, 08/07/2012 - 12:54 | 2685105's picture

Of course not. Did you have a point?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!