"The jobs Wal-Mart and McDonalds provide produces billions in profits for the company."
Disagree. Sprawl-mart and McDucks make their profit on control of materials costs and production efficiencies.
Customers, who are often the less affluent, directly benefit form the low prices charged by these companies.
"They should be forced to pay a living wage."
Disagree. They employ individuals who often have no other job "skills" than the ability push the button on the fry-olator or the ability to move product from a box to a shelf. Those jobs are not worth a living wage.
If society wants all individuals to have an income of some minimum amount, regardless of their productive abilities, then that amount needs to be delivered by income redistribution systems (aka government transfers), not through a distortion of wages. That is what the EIC is all about.
"There are a lot of necessary jobs that don't require a lot of education and training."
It's not simply a question of necessity but also of supply and demand.
"I choose not to share my tax return with you. Let's just say I am not being subsidized."
Fine. But if you don't pay a proportional share of the cost of the Federal government - that $12k year, apx, then someone in the US is subsidizing you.
GNKOQ is currently trading at 1.70 +/-.
It will be interesting to watch what happens between now and June 30 when the stock is replaced with warrants.
The entire process GNK is going through will likely be repeated with EGLE.
According to the first of the 8-Ks that described the restructure, the intent is that the new company will, eventually, be listed (this differs from the GMR restructure in which the new company has never been listed).
As part of the agreement, management (whoever that will be going forward) committed to working toward a restructure, but it could be up to a year before a listing occurs.
"We have many flaws but I am happy to live in this great country.."
I suspect that we would all - democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, whatever - agree, and lift a glass, to that statement.
"I am still waiting for my presents and gifts..."
But... they are ALL AROUND YOU. We quibble about the particulars, but we have good government, security, education, food, health care.
"I pay my taxes, with a smile..."
Unless you pay Fed income tax of $12,000 or so, YOU are being subsidized. So... you SHOULD smile.
"It bothers me that my taxes help subsidies the profits of Wal-Mart and McDonalds by providing funds so their employees can survive."
The work that the average Sprawl-mart and Mcduck's employee provides isn't *worth* a living wage.
Consequently your taxes are NOT subsidizing the companies. Your taxes are subsiding **individuals** whose job skills (or opportunities) aren't sufficient to provide the standard of living that you would wish for all.
"It bothers me my tax dollars went to enrich Cheney/Halliburton and killed thousands of Americans"
If you're referring to the war in Iraq, not to worry; the bill for that war has never been paid. You've never contributed a penny to fund that war.
"Did that Easter Bunny rise after being crucified?"
Hopefully not. With the BMI increases of even the "poverty stricken" in this country, the LAST thing we need is for EB to be handing out more jelly beans and chocolate eggs.
Well, no, actually. That 4 year old BECAME the 30 year old.
At first it was God who was supposed to provide the wants, and desires. Later, when the child became an "adult", it was society, via government programs, that is supposed to meet the individual's demands regarding presents and gifts.
OSG is a V-E-R-Y different situation. It is in no way comparable to GNK.
For one thing, mark-to-market NAV was sufficient to pay off the debt holders in full AND leave something for the common shares.
For another, OSG has a Jones Act fleet. That is a particularly valuable asset.
Enviros are hoping to kill tar sands by killing Keystone XL.
It is the case that BOE originating in tar sands is more environmentally expensive (aka damaging) to extract than "traditional" fossil fuels. Which is why enviros want to terminate the practice.
But killing Keystone XL won't terminate tar sands extraction. Deprived of an economically efficient means of delivery to US refineries, Canada would likely export to Asia - which would be a more expensive alternative than Keystone XL - both in terms of economics and the environment.
So why does the State Department persist? Because of the politics.
The fact that YOU are admitted racist, Rog, does not mean that every other white is an unconfessed racist.
You seem to want to hold everyone else accountable for YOUR sin. They didn't stand up to stop you - to tell you that it was wrong. So it is THEIR fault.
Sorry pal. It doesn't work that way.
On or about June 30. State in the 8-K that was filed yesterday.
"The Financial Projections are based on the assumption that the effective date of the Plan will occur on or about June 30, 2014."
"Existing Equity: All existing equity interests (including common stock, preferred stock and any options, warrants or rights to acquire any equity interests) shall be cancelled on the Effective Date. Holders of equity interests will receive the New Genco Warrants under the Plan."
Why would a short close when the shares will be cancelled at the end of June and replaced with warrants that are worth less than half of the current pps?
Perhaps you wouldn't make such lousy "investment" decisions if you spent as much time doing company and industry DD as you spend making up, and then playing with, look-alike yahoo ids.
The "liquidation analysis" is legit and absolutely necessary if the assets are not to be sold... if the company is to be reorganized and given another "go" at "life". All of the assumptions used in the analysis are, as stated in the filing, "...inherently subject to significant, economic, competitive and operational uncertainties".
A court will have no reason to reject a pre-pack that is based on reasoned, documented assumptions and which the lenders have agreed to and that which does not make them 100% whole on their investment in the company.. Attorney's representing common holders can challenge the economic assumptions and the plan of reorganization, of course. But they will need to **prove** that the assumptions are in accurate.
Good news. Bad news.
The good news is that EGLE has another two weeks of life.
The bad news is that there is, apparently, no agreement as yet on loan restructure, etc.
If this pushes up to 4, it might be an interesting short.
You're being something of a hypocrite, given your past practice of regular contributions to political posts.
But, by all means, feel free to contribute to discussions on shipping news,etc.
Do you HAVE anything to contribute in that regard?
The only one who might be worthy of some sympathy is Buchanan. Peter G probably lured him out of a lucrative position at Wallem with a promise of a fat equity position in GNK, yada yada. In the end he gets screwed while Peter G has pieces of other pies and Wobensmith has his Baltic gig.
Nah. Not a lie. There is a fair amount of info on this out in a variety of media sources. Part of the issue is the uncertainty about the claims experience that will result from the new customer base signing up - particularly given the lower than expected (hoped for?) sign up of younger folks. Companies are predicting double-digit rate increases in response.
Before you scream "LIE"... remember the promises that were made about keeping one's insurance plan, one's doctor, and that one's insurance cost would not increase. All of those "promises" proved to be less than truthful.
ACA did not decrease the overall cost for healthcare. Consequently, for ANYONE to get a break on healthcare costs, someone ELSE has to pay more. We're still working our way through the issues that will determine WHO will have to pay more and how much they will have to pay.
". Not ONE GOP elected official is far putting CEO and small business owners in jail."
Don't get out much, do you? The Gov of SC (?) is firmly behind that. So are a number some of right-wight organizations.
" Why then should a person who came to the USA when he was 12 years old brought by his parents and has lived here for 25 years not have a way to be a citizen?"
He does. He can apply for citizenship. Serve in the military...
Why should that individual get a leg up on citizenship over someone who played by the rules?
Using your twisted logic, if someone robs a bank he can avoid prosecution if he invests his take in the community, creates jobs... The fact that his success is built on an illegal act is, to your thinking, completely irrelevant.
" Are you for breaking up families? How can you be a Christian and support that sort of thing?"
Um. Rog. I thought you read the Scriptures. I forget the reference, but in one of the OT historical books(?) God, via his prophets, REQUIRED that families be broken up when the Hebrew men intermarried with local women.
That aside... a family does not have to be broken up. The US (?) spouse and kids can accompany the illegal back to his/her home. One spouse leaving, the other staying is NOT the only option open to the family.
" It is about what do we do with the 10-15million illegal's we already have in the country."
How can you NOT understand that you just contradicted your earlier statement that the discussion is not about "legal"?
" The GOP so far has been ANY bill that will lead to citizenship of ANY of those folks regardless of how old they were when they came into the US or how long they have lived here or if they have children or wives who are US citizens."
And? Those individuals violated federal law (in a number of ways). Why should they get a "free pass" to citizenship just because they were not caught?
" They are against any citizenship because of the vote."
No. They're against citizenship for individuals who entered the country illegally.
"Back in Viet Nam days I saw a lot of Porta Rican men serve in the Army being granted citizenship for their service. Today the GOP is against doing that for ANY illegals now in the country."
How can you even compare the two? The Puerto RIcans EARNED their citizenship LEGALLY through military service. How is that even remotely comparable to an illegal?
"If you are silly enough to believe that the border of the USA can ever be closed..."
I don't think it can be. But that doesn't mean we abandon the concept of legal vs. illegal entry just BECAUSE of the difficulty in "closing" the border.
"Enforce the law against those hiring illegals. Start putting people in jail CEO's, small business owners who use big labor forces of illegals and Fine the #$%$ out of anyone (you and me included) who hire them"
I support that 100%.