Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:34:29 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If
it wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and
Ford in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed
for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the
same and say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate
and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in
NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each
middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own.
Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and
businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill
must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't
print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of
recession. Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace.
The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in
bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good
case study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler
has left..

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to
work to
get the money...
If I received a voucher I wouldn't buy a GM or Chrysler. I would
buy a Ford, Toyota, Honda or Nissan.

Depends on the size of the voucher. I'd buy another GM pickup if the
voucher were big enough to overcome my doubts about future warranty
service.


A voucher might be worthwhile if its use were restricted to
high-mileage vehicles with a certified "manufactured in the USA or
Canada" content of at least 90%. Not assembled...manufactured.

I see no reason to subsidize purchases of products produced overseas.

I wouldn't use the voucher if I was forced to purchase a vehicle I
would not normally purchase. A cheap headache is still a headache.

I wouldn't argue that point, but...the purpose of such a voucher is to
help the U.S. auto industry. You don't help the industry by buying goods
whose most expensive pieces and parts are made overseas.

I rent different cars on business trips. Since I am usually traveling on
some union's business, I rent "American cars" built by the Big Three. I
try to alternate, but I've sort of kicked GM off the list entirely. I've
been disappointed by something substantial on each GM car I've rented
over the years. The Fords have been fine, and so have the few Chrysler
products that have been readily available at my destination.

I rented a nice Ford Exploder on my last trip to Boston a month or so
ago. There was nothing about the car I didn't like, and it only cost me
$38 a night (holy schitt!) to park it in the hotel's garage.


That doesn't sound Green at all.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

On Dec 16, 1:00*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

That doesn't sound Green at all.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, kind of sounds like someone who doesn't care much about the
environment, huh? Or at least if it was a true story.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to
any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees
retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work has
no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting pieces
of a car together does not warrant the money that the union workers
receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a newspaper
all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both sides of the
table should be take out back and shot.

Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable



The consistent theme in all the rightie "Cures" for the Big Three is to
bust the unions. There's nothing more to it.

The unions are 1/2 of the problem.

Bailout mania...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:49:43 -0500, BAR wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:21:29 -0500, BAR wrote:


GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt. Their management needs to change
and their union contracts need to be voided. The skill in putting
pieces of a car together does not warrant the money that the union
workers receive. And, getting paid 95% for sitting around reading a
newspaper all day long is ridiculous. Whomever agreed to that on both
sides of the table should be take out back and shot.
Help me out here, you're a good Conservative. How do you justify
*giving* $3.6 billion to foreign auto makers, but aren't willing to
*loan* money to keep American manufacturers alive. Seems a little
unfair, and perhaps, un-American, doesn't it?

http://www.wbay.com/global/story.asp...Type=Printable


I'm sure that if GM, Ford and Chrysler wanted to build plants in
southern states and bring jobs to those state the state governments
would be happy to build infrastructure and give tax breaks to obtain
those jobs.

Even my county will give tax breaks to companies to keep white collar
jobs in the county and the state will give tax breaks to keep the jobs
in the state. All you have to do is engage a commercial real estate
agent in another county or state and you will get a call form your
county and states business development office.

Oh, so it's about helping yours, not ours, is that it? So, for Shelby,
Corker, Mitchell, et.al, it wasn't about keeping government out of the
marketplace, was it? It was about protecting foreign companies at the
expense of American companies.

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Then, perhaps, you can explain how we managed to sign a "free trade"
agreement, that limits American manufacturers to selling 5,000 cars in
South Korea, but allows them to sell 600,000 cars here. Our government
played a role in getting Detroit into this mess, perhaps small, but still
a role. It should play a role in getting it out of this mess.

You are talking apples and oranges. Whine to your US Congressmen about
the lousy agreement with South Korea. Th money you identified above all
came from the states.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate and
then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other benefits.
That money is already the money of the union members.

Bailout mania...
 

CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why we
need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it will
hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no Social
Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500 cars
a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and the
workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any
of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds
in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout
for pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the pension
funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k, but
it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.




D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.

Bailout mania...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why we
need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it will
hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no Social
Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500 cars
a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and the
workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any
of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds
in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout
for pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the pension
funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k, but
it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate and
then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other benefits.
That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit is
bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout for
pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar model,
where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given year
or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So rather than
the traditional model, the construction unions and the employers whose
employees they represent devised a model that provided *instant
portability* for union members. It also works for the benefit of
traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the spring, summer
and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they work union in
Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to their home local's
pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate
and then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other
benefits. That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.


I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this matter.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.



D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

I've had a Rollover IRA for over 20 years and nobody has stolen the
money from the account.

Why are union pension funds being raided by union pension fund managers
and union executives so frequently? The unions need to hire a
professional managers for the unions and Series 7 Licensed pension fund
managers.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit is
bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout for
pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities. The
employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.



D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and
aided the prosecutors.

I've had a Rollover IRA for over 20 years and nobody has stolen the
money from the account.

Why are union pension funds being raided by union pension fund managers
and union executives so frequently? The unions need to hire a
professional managers for the unions and Series 7 Licensed pension fund
managers.


Hysterical, absolutely hysterical.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40 times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k +
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:


The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.


Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.

That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.


Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit
is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout
for pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities.
The employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.

If the UAW doesn't do it the same way, why not?



Because it follows the more traditional industrial-white collar
model, where pension funds tend to be controlled by the employers.,

The construction union model evolved differently because its union
members tended to work for several different employers in a given
year or over the course of a career. That still is the case. So
rather than the traditional model, the construction unions and the
employers whose employees they represent devised a model that
provided *instant portability* for union members. It also works for
the benefit of traveling members who might work in Minneapolis in the
spring, summer and fall, and then in Florida in the winter. If they
work union in Florida, the pension contributions they earn go to
their home local's pension fund so they get credit for it.

Keep in mind that construction unions negotiate a gross hourly rate
and then decide what part of that rate goes to pension and other
benefits. That money is already the money of the union members.


Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW "executives"
think they are tough negotiators but in reality they just feed off of
the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.


I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this matter.

Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking) and
401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate corporate
policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this model is
followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the union.

2. See 1., above.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.


You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money for
the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit (medical,
dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking) and
401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate corporate
policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this model is
followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the union.

Why don't they change it. Surely the union has enough muscle in the form
of bargaining power to get it changed or do they not want the
responsibility of managing their members pensions and benefits. It
sounds like they want the company on the hook if costs go up.

2. See 1., above.

The UAW should be able to get a very good deal with an insurance
companies on an insurance policy for medical, dental, life and other
benefits. Again, it sounds like the union doesn't want the
responsibility if the costs go up.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.

Doesn't sound like they do enough for their members.

You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Exempt employee, I get a nice deposit into my checking account every two
weeks. Oh, and it is at will employment. Just the way I like it.

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:

Is the UAW run be idiots? It sure sounds like it. The UAW
"executives" think they are tough negotiators but in reality they
just feed off of the crumbs that the auto manufacturers toss them.




I'll be polite. You do not know what you are talking about in this
matter.




Why does the UAW let the auto manufacturers keep the pension money
for the union members?

Why does the UAW let the quto manufacturers keep the benefit
(medical, dental, etc...) money for the union members?

What benefit do union members receive from the UAW?



1. As I explained previously, the UAW follows the traditional
manufacturing-white collar model. Many employers operate the same way.
Many employers have defined pension plans (that number is shrinking)
and 401k's. It isn't a matter of "allow." The UAW does not dictate
corporate policy. If you are asking me the particulars as to why this
model is followed by the UAW, that is a question you'd have to ask the
union.

Why don't they change it. Surely the union has enough muscle in the form
of bargaining power to get it changed or do they not want the
responsibility of managing their members pensions and benefits. It
sounds like they want the company on the hook if costs go up.

2. See 1., above.

The UAW should be able to get a very good deal with an insurance
companies on an insurance policy for medical, dental, life and other
benefits. Again, it sounds like the union doesn't want the
responsibility if the costs go up.

3. Heheheheheh. Typically, unions negotiate wages, hours, working
conditions and benefits for their members, and represent their members
in grievance processing.

Doesn't sound like they do enough for their members.

You talk about your work a bit from time to time. I'm guessing you are
not a payroll employee.

Exempt employee, I get a nice deposit into my checking account every two
weeks. Oh, and it is at will employment. Just the way I like it.





Bert, I suggest you direct your UAW questions to the UAW. I am not a
member of that union and I haven't really known anyone there since my
days working Dem politics and PR in Detroit. That was a long, long time
ago.

While I assist international unions, these days I stay out of their
politics. I help whoever is in charge...and when those players change, I
help the new guys/gals. I don't make policy or assist in making
policy...but once there is policy, I help promote it.

Bailout mania...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.

Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and
the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.

Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to
any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees
retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work has
no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.







Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.


D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to your
attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union covered
by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements except for
unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather,
bonding is required because experience has shown that when people are
entrusted with the money or property of another, there will be instances
when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or dishonesty. Bonding is
therefore required to insure the union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example,
a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling"
union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or
employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's account is
"handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no physical
contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be bonded include
union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees such as business
agents, trustees, key administrative and professional staff, and clerical
personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in computing
the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for computing the
approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury securities,
corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans receivable are common
examples of liquid assets. Property of a relatively permanent nature, such
as land, buildings, furniture, and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know whether
they are approved and your national or international union may be able to
assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS
office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond with a company
on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond
through an agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has any direct
or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example, many
national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union is
covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the bonding
requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The easiest
way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who handle
funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office. Copies
of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA and the
CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are also
available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for their
affiliates should examine the timetables established for affiliates to
report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The amount of bonding
coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year. This can be of
particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage must be increased
because of an increase in the amount of funds handled during the fiscal
year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is inadequately bonded from
receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or
control of any of the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the
parent organization requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds
handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then promptly
arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is required,
adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer, which is a
violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in my
earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock at a
discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is theft.
They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not ripped
off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail term,
does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

Bailout mania...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:54:29 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:54:17 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:



Too many are far too undiciplined to save. How about keep it but with a
twist.

401KL - 401K locked in. Your SSN taxes are the same but go into an
account
exclusively in your name. Forced savings if you will.

Locked into what. Enron?
I basically like the idea, but because it's "Social Security" it has
to be secure.
I don't see how you get past the gov guaranteeing it.

--Vic

Locked in to investments. Overall it will make money. You do not put all
the money in Enron etc. And who is going to pay those "guaranteed" Social
Security payouts? The government can only tax so much. They increase
payout age. Happening now. They decrease payout amounts. Happening
next.
You and employer pay in say $15k a year for 40 years. You get back $1k a
month for maybe 8 years. starting at age 72. $600k in gives $96K out.
401KL $600K in average growth of 3% a year for 40 years. 3% times 40
times
$300k {would actually be n=more, but just figure average amount of money
invested}= 120% increase of the $300K == $160k Total at retirement $600k
+
$160K = $760K you can start drawing on at age 60 if retired, Figure a
couple of the investments did not pan out, so you only get $600k to draw
from at age 60. Seems as if is a better deal than SS.

Too much money there, and the wrong premise. SS should only provide a
bottom to keep people housed and fed if they contributed but have no
other savings/investments. It's not an real "investment."
Lots of actuarial figuring goes into it, given how people die off.
Why I want to get it out of the hands of the gov is because they spend
it for other things. Their accounting is pure B.S.
Having the individual accounts "invested" in non-gov entities would be
a dose of reality and accountability, and might stimulate the economy,
but if the gov won't guarantee it, why let them take it out of your
paycheck? Might as well put it in FDIC insured savings. But again
you're back to a gov guarantee.
There is no answer to ensured retirement without the gov.
And ensured retirement money - subsistence or not - is the main reason
for SS. It will never go away, because poor old folks sleeping under
bridges and begging for alms just won't be tolerated.
If equities get into the mix - and that may or may not be a good idea
- you get another can of worms opened with preferences and all.
And again, if the gov won't insure at least a bottom, what good are
they?

--Vic

A base to keep the old and infirm from starving was the basis for Social
Security. The Widows and Children's act. But LBJ figured out how to get
lots more money to spend for a war he and his family profited highly from,
but promising hire payouts, when raising the contribution amount. Worked
great for LBJ, early in, just like a good Ponzi scam. Up until LBJ I paid
1% of the first $3300 a year and the employer matched it. $660 a year
total. But now is about 16% total, and the government is hiding lots of
deficit spending via SS contributions. You think Clinton really balanced
the budget? Take out that 16% SS money, and the deficit would be huge.
Same as now. You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?
Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

Bailout mania...
 

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If it
wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335 million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and Ford in 1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the same and
say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate and not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own. Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and businesses out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill must be paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't print out of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of recession.
Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. The war in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in bankruptcy of the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good case
study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler has left.

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.

Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to work to
get the money...

************************************************** *****

You are freekin' unbelievable!
In one breath you whine about getting a free handout so you can buy a new
vehicle and in the next, badmouth the hard working uniom man for expecting
to get money without working. What makes you so special?



It's far too complicated you you to understand. Please stay in
alt.lemmings where you belong.

Bailout mania...
 

Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 12:16 am, "Canuck57" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:06:30 -0500, BAR wrote:
Chrysler should have been left to go bankrupt back in 1980. If it
wasn't
for the M1 Abrams the government never would have stepped in.
Maybe, but then the government would have missed out on the $335
million
profit they made on the $1.5 billion loan guarantee.
Today has 2 major differences.

First, $1.5 billion is about the burn rate for GM, Chrysler and Ford in
1
week! It is estimated for GM alone, $75 to 125 billion is needed for
solvency and sustainability. Assuming Chrysler needs about the same and
say
$50 billion for Ford, further assuming their numbers are accurate and
not
cooked they collectively need $250 billion. And that is if they
instantly
fix the problems, which historically, it is like investing in NorTel. By
the way they too need a bailout. That is about $1250 out of each middle
class workers pocket. 2-3 car payments for cars they don't own. Oh, and
parts suppliers like JCI and Magna, extra.

Second, what do you do with the other 98% of the people and businesses
out
there? Screw them with $1250 more taxes? The last points bill must be
paid
or the next loaf of bread might as well cost $1000. You can't print out
of
debt on this scale without at least a working generation of recession.
Keep
in mind, government revenue is going down at an alarming pace. The war
in
the middle east will not end with peace, it will end in bankruptcy of
the
government and currency itself.

North America can no long afford these dogs. Will make some good case
study
for Harvard and Yale is the only redeeming value GM and Chrysler has
left.

This is going to come down to American bankruptcy into the currency.
Said it before, so did several others. Give us middle class folks a
voucher to help pay for a new car. We get a bailout, GM gets to sell
cars, then put folks to work building new ones.... But the Union
doesn't want that, it would mean they would have to go back to work to
get the money...

************************************************** *****

You are freekin' unbelievable!
In one breath you whine about getting a free handout so you can buy a new
vehicle and in the next, badmouth the hard working uniom man for
expecting to get money without working. What makes you so special?
JustHate is an important man...he runs a boat-building company that
doesn't build boats and a motorcycle racing team that doesn't race
motorcycles.


I heard he races that new bike around the kitchen table.



Where did you hear that, dummy?

Go take a nap.

Bailout mania...
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union and
the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor health
and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to
any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees
retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work has
no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc. How
many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to your
attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union covered
by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements except for
unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather,
bonding is required because experience has shown that when people are
entrusted with the money or property of another, there will be instances
when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or dishonesty. Bonding is
therefore required to insure the union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example,
a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling"
union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or
employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's account is
"handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no physical
contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be bonded include
union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees such as business
agents, trustees, key administrative and professional staff, and clerical
personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in computing
the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for computing the
approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury securities,
corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans receivable are common
examples of liquid assets. Property of a relatively permanent nature, such
as land, buildings, furniture, and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know whether
they are approved and your national or international union may be able to
assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS
office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond with a company
on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond
through an agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has any direct
or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example, many
national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union is
covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the bonding
requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The easiest
way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who handle
funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office. Copies
of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA and the
CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are also
available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for their
affiliates should examine the timetables established for affiliates to
report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The amount of bonding
coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year. This can be of
particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage must be increased
because of an increase in the amount of funds handled during the fiscal
year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is inadequately bonded from
receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or
control of any of the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the
parent organization requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds
handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then promptly
arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is required,
adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer, which is a
violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in my
earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock at a
discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is theft.
They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not ripped
off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail term,
does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.



There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Bailout mania...
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Federal income tax but not state income tax.

I think the closed down a mini van plant in Baltimore or are going to
close one down soon.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair
and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35
gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct
and forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for
health and welfare go directly to the jointly administered
union-contractor health and welfare pension and benefit fund
offices. Anyone who has access to any of the funds at the benefit
is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a reputable trust funder
"advisor" who helps the trustees invest the funds in "safe"
investments that pay a return higher than the anticipated payout
for pensions and other benefits. There are no unfunded liabilities.
The employer for whom the union workers work has no access to the
pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico,
etc. How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and
aided the prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding
requirements for certain officers and employees of labor
organizations. Every union covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is
subject to the bonding requirements except for unions whose property
and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by
fraudulent or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft,
embezzlement, or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on
the idea that particular individuals or organizations are inherently
dishonest. Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown
that when people are entrusted with the money or property of another,
there will be instances when individuals will cause a loss through
fraud or dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the
union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or
property must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during
the union's preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An
individual is considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her
duties or authority provide access to union funds resulting in a
significant risk of loss of funds if that person engages in
fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example, a person who receives
dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling" union funds and
therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or employee who
has authority to sign checks on the union's account is "handling"
union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no physical contact
with the funds. Individuals who typically must be bonded include
union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees such as
business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional staff,
and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula
for computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that
are quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type
of financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies
know whether they are approved and your national or international
union may be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the
list from the nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of
placing the bond with a company on the Treasury Department list, the
law prohibits placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a
company in which any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or
other union representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both
their organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national
or international union if you have any questions about whether your
union is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each
fiscal year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year.
(Figures required for the bonding computation must be compiled for
your union's annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the
last year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons
who handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the
LMRDA and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part
453, are also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal
year. This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding
coverage must be increased because of an increase in the amount of
funds handled during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person
who is inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or
otherwise exercising custody or control of any of the labor
organization's funds or property. Unless the parent organization
requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds handled
immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then promptly
arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is required,
adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer, which is a
violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded
in my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing
stock at a discount and then buying it back at more than the current
value is theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union members
money was not ripped off, where did the money come from? Just because
they beat a jail term, does not mean they did not deserve to be charge
with fraud.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and
why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be
unfair and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger
than 35 gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed
to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the
contractors...the contractors pay the workers their hourly
paycheck rate and deduct and forward the required taxes to the
feds. The deductions for health and welfare go directly to the
jointly administered union-contractor health and welfare pension
and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any of the
funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest the
funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers work
has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico,
etc. How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution
and aided the prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this
to your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are
my union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding
requirements for certain officers and employees of labor
organizations. Every union covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is
subject to the bonding requirements except for unions whose property
and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which
guarantees reimbursement to the union for any financial losses
caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts by officers or employees,
such as theft, embezzlement, or forgery. The bonding requirements
are not based on the idea that particular individuals or
organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather, bonding is required
because experience has shown that when people are entrusted with the
money or property of another, there will be instances when
individuals will cause a loss through fraud or dishonesty. Bonding
is therefore required to insure the union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or
property must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during
the union's preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An
individual is considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her
duties or authority provide access to union funds resulting in a
significant risk of loss of funds if that person engages in
fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example, a person who receives
dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling" union funds and
therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or employee who
has authority to sign checks on the union's account is "handling"
union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no physical
contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be bonded
include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and
professional staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula
for computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that
are quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any
type of financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S.
Treasury securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and
loans receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved bonding companies. The
companies know whether they are approved and your national or
international union may be able to assist you. You can also obtain a
copy of the list from the nearest OLMS office. In addition to the
requirement of placing the bond with a company on the Treasury
Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond through an agent
or broker or with a company in which any union or any officer,
agent, shop steward, or other union representative has any direct or
indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both
their organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your
national or international union if you have any questions about
whether your union is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each
fiscal year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year.
(Figures required for the bonding computation must be compiled for
your union's annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the
last year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons
who handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the
LMRDA and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part
453, are also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal
year. This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding
coverage must be increased because of an increase in the amount of
funds handled during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person
who is inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or
otherwise exercising custody or control of any of the labor
organization's funds or property. Unless the parent organization
requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds handled
immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then promptly
arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is required,
adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer, which is a
violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be
bonded in my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY.
Issuing stock at a discount and then buying it back at more than the
current value is theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union
members money was not ripped off, where did the money come from?
Just because they beat a jail term, does not mean they did not
deserve to be charge with fraud.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money
was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Bailout mania...
 

Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail
and why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be
unfair and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger
than 35 gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be
allowed to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a
quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money is
between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the
contractors...the contractors pay the workers their hourly
paycheck rate and deduct and forward the required taxes to the
feds. The deductions for health and welfare go directly to the
jointly administered union-contractor health and welfare pension
and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any of the
funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than the
anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There are no
unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union workers
work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico,
etc. How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution
and aided the prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you
are suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought
this to your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are
my union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act
of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding
requirements for certain officers and employees of labor
organizations. Every union covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is
subject to the bonding requirements except for unions whose
property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which
guarantees reimbursement to the union for any financial losses
caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts by officers or employees,
such as theft, embezzlement, or forgery. The bonding requirements
are not based on the idea that particular individuals or
organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather, bonding is required
because experience has shown that when people are entrusted with
the money or property of another, there will be instances when
individuals will cause a loss through fraud or dishonesty. Bonding
is therefore required to insure the union against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or
property must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled
during the union's preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of
$500,000. An individual is considered to be "handling" union funds
if his/her duties or authority provide access to union funds
resulting in a significant risk of loss of funds if that person
engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example, a person who
receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling" union
funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any officer or
employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's account is
"handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has no
physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected),
employees such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and
professional staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula
for computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required
per person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that
are quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any
type of financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S.
Treasury securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and
loans receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of
a relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture,
and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved bonding companies. The
companies know whether they are approved and your national or
international union may be able to assist you. You can also obtain
a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS office. In addition to the
requirement of placing the bond with a company on the Treasury
Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond through an
agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has any
direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For
example, many national or international unions obtain a bond
covering both their organization and their affiliated unions.
Contact your national or international union if you have any
questions about whether your union is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each
fiscal year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year.
(Figures required for the bonding computation must be compiled for
your union's annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as
well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the
last year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all
persons who handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the
LMRDA and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part
453, are also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage
for their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal
year. This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding
coverage must be increased because of an increase in the amount of
funds handled during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any
person who is inadequately bonded from receiving, handling,
disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control of any of
the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the parent
organization requires each affiliate to report the amount of funds
handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year and then
promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an increase is
required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months or longer,
which is a violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be
bonded in my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY.
Issuing stock at a discount and then buying it back at more than the
current value is theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union
members money was not ripped off, where did the money come from?
Just because they beat a jail term, does not mean they did not
deserve to be charge with fraud.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension
money was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Privately held by whom? Who owns the stock?

Bailout mania...
 

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail
and why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be
unfair and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger
than 35 gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be
allowed to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet
a quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money
is between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the
contractors...the contractors pay the workers their hourly
paycheck rate and deduct and forward the required taxes to the
feds. The deductions for health and welfare go directly to the
jointly administered union-contractor health and welfare pension
and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any of the
funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than
the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There
are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico,
etc. How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution
and aided the prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you
are suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought
this to your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are
my union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding
requirements for certain officers and employees of labor
organizations. Every union covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is
subject to the bonding requirements except for unions whose
property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which
guarantees reimbursement to the union for any financial losses
caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts by officers or employees,
such as theft, embezzlement, or forgery. The bonding requirements
are not based on the idea that particular individuals or
organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather, bonding is
required because experience has shown that when people are
entrusted with the money or property of another, there will be
instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union
against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or
property must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled
during the union's preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of
$500,000. An individual is considered to be "handling" union funds
if his/her duties or authority provide access to union funds
resulting in a significant risk of loss of funds if that person
engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example, a person who
receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling"
union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the
union's account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even
if he/she has no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who
typically must be bonded include union officers (both elected and
non-elected), employees such as business agents, trustees, key
administrative and professional staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula
for computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required
per person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that
are quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any
type of financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S.
Treasury securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and
loans receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of
a relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture,
and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved bonding companies. The
companies know whether they are approved and your national or
international union may be able to assist you. You can also obtain
a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS office. In addition to
the requirement of placing the bond with a company on the Treasury
Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond through an
agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has
any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For
example, many national or international unions obtain a bond
covering both their organization and their affiliated unions.
Contact your national or international union if you have any
questions about whether your union is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each
fiscal year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year.
(Figures required for the bonding computation must be compiled for
your union's annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as
well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the
last year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all
persons who handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the
LMRDA and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR
Part 453, are also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage
for their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal
year. This can be of particular importance if the amount of
bonding coverage must be increased because of an increase in the
amount of funds handled during the fiscal year. The LMRDA
prohibits any person who is inadequately bonded from receiving,
handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control
of any of the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the
parent organization requires each affiliate to report the amount
of funds handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year
and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an
increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several
months or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be
bonded in my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY.
Issuing stock at a discount and then buying it back at more than
the current value is theft. They should have gone to jail. If the
union members money was not ripped off, where did the money come
from? Just because they beat a jail term, does not mean they did
not deserve to be charge with fraud.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension
money was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Privately held by whom? Who owns the stock?



Well, I haven't been associated with the company in four plus years, and
I know the shareholder rules have changed some, but...when I was
associated, most of the shares were owned by the company's investors,
which consisted of labor unions and union pension funds, several union
pension consultant firms, and a very limited number of shares were owned
by members of the board of directors and senior execs above the vice
president level. I have a close friend who was on the board and who has
since retired who owned a few shares, and he was going to give me one as
gag gift, but I wasn't eligible to own the share. So he bought me lunch
at a good deli instead. The lunch was good.

I have no knowledge of the company these days, beyond what I see
occasionally in the financial press.

Bailout mania...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in
my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock
at a discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is
theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not
ripped off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail
term, does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.

There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money was
stolen. Got it?

They tried. Wherefore did the money your slimeballs tried to take with the
stock fraud come from? If not directly from the pension fund, from the
investment income of the pension fund. There is no other money coming in
other than pension or investment income. No matter how you spin it, your
buddies are thiefs.

Bailout mania...
 

CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.
D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.

I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in
my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock
at a discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is
theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not
ripped off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail
term, does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.
There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money was
stolen. Got it?

They tried.

No, Bilious, they didn't.

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests
in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the
CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company
you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

I wasn't trying to run for government. Sooner run for 1st mate on the
Titanic.

My main point being, this is one hell of a lot worse than a simple 12-16
month recession and you can't count on pensions not specifically in your
name for much.

Bailout mania...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Federal income tax but not state income tax.

I think the closed down a mini van plant in Baltimore or are going to
close one down soon.

I think GM is taking 5 weeks off in January, February. Knowing GM, mostly
with pay.

Bailout mania...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50 million
geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying to address
this now. One of the major reasons for public service union strikes. They
want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12 years, there will
be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25 years if I remember
the numbers correctly.

Bailout mania...
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50
million geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying
to address this now. One of the major reasons for public service union
strikes. They want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12
years, there will be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25
years if I remember the numbers correctly.

And they will be angry when they don't get paid. Many a retired and soon to
retire have never saved for it depending very much on this.

This recession could in fact get very ugly, riots over food, jobs and
retirement benefits.

Bailout mania...
 

Canuck57 wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?
That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.
That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic
There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50
million geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying
to address this now. One of the major reasons for public service union
strikes. They want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12
years, there will be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25
years if I remember the numbers correctly.

And they will be angry when they don't get paid. Many a retired and soon to
retire have never saved for it depending very much on this.

I hope they like eating rice and beans for three meals a day and living
in a trailer in some dumpy trailer park in Florida. Some of these people
are not going to be getting more than a $1000 a month from SS for two
people to live on. Try going from $40K or $50K a year down to $12K
without any other sources of income.

If you were stupid enough to think the government was going to take care
of you when you retired then you deserve to live in poverty.

This recession could in fact get very ugly, riots over food, jobs and
retirement benefits.

Thank you FDR and LBJ.