Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & ....


Well-Known Member
An interesting article about the upcoming lame duck session. Three weeks of nothing to lose.
Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared

If Democrats were running a corporation, their actions would be criminal.
Tuesday, October 19th

Unions and Democrats are scared. They should be.

Very soon, Democrats and their union bosses’ worst fears may soon be realized and, if they cannot continue their slight of hand, it may threaten their very existence. While it is true that Democrats and their union bosses are facing possibly debilitating losses on November 2nd, they are hiding the really bad news from voters until after November 2nd.

Do you remember that promise we heard back in 2008 about transparency? Democrats and, in particular, then-candidate Barack Obama stated

“This is Armageddon.”

In June, a conversation took place in a hotel restaurant in Washington. As a latecomer to the conversation, it was easy to pick up that the topic that was the $165 billion union pension bailout bill introduced by Sen. Bob Casey [D-PA] in March.

Upon introductions, one of the individuals stated, “this is Armageddon.”


On Nov. 1, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) ceases to take public comment on a new rule requiring that companies more accurately report liabilities they have from participation in multiemployer pension plans. Unless FASB is persuaded otherwise, the rule takes effect Dec. 15.

There are some 1,500 multiemployer pension plans in the United States, which are unique to unions. In these plans, multiple companies pay into the pension plan, but each company assumes the total liability.

Under “last man standing” accounting rules, if five companies are in a plan and four go bankrupt, the fifth company is responsible for meeting the pension obligations for the employees of the other four companies.

What this means is that companies with union labor often have pension liabilities that are several multiples higher than the pension expenditures they report — the Kroger grocery store chain shocked analysts last year when it disclosed its multiemployer pension liabilities more than doubled in a year to $1.2 billion.


FASB’s new rule could effectively wipe out the paper worth of many companies, especially in the trucking and construction industries. Once banks and creditors are aware of these staggering pension liabilities, it will make it nearly impossible for union businesses to get loans, credit lines or bonding.
It only gets better and better.

Armageddon: What Democrats Are Hiding & Why They Are Really Scared



so they have to report their potential liability under these shared pension thingies, and that is going to destroy industries? i really like the [snip]. i think that was where the author had the opportunity to connect the dots. but as it stands the article is just a bunch of wandering garbage and accusations.

this is a law that will require companies to disclose, and i quote, "reality?" so perhaps they should keep misrepresenting their risk exposure?



Well-Known Member
When asked for clarification, the person explained about the accounting rules developed to shore up underfunded union pensions and the dates when those union companies affected would have to assume their liabilities had the DC crowd (in particular, the Democrats and the unions) in a panic.

Yesterday, the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway gave a good breakdown of how bad it could get for Democrats and their union bosses:

I hate to quote an entire article, I believe the site should have the views that pay the bills.


Well-Known Member
Minks is right it sounds silly but...

This could go one of two ways.

The way it should go is that the companies
simply don't pay the pensions.

The way it will go is that the government
will print money to try to keep this silliness going
as long as they can.

You rob Peter to pay Paul
but one day you must pay the piper.


i think the real question is what were those fuckwits smoking when they entered into such risky agreements in the first place? if they were in such poor financial shape to where they'd have to make such moronic moves of desperation, they should have sold the businesses, walked away, etc.

sounds like any companies that go bye-bye because of full disclosure don't deserve to exist anyway - no more shielding poorly run businesses from the dynamics of the market, please.

oh those poor union truckers and construction workers... what will they do? give hand jobs on the corner for a dollar?


Well-Known Member
Dems are scared, end going to there old tactic of "Say Anything".

It doesn't matter if they believe it themselves, if it's their true agenda,
or if it's even true at all.
Just sell it....

At a fundraiser Monday night for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the president emphasized just how high the the stakes are in this election, saying, "Everything that I've been able to accomplish over the last couple of years has been because I had these great partners."

And Mr. Obama's press secretary made it clear the president wants to keep those partners, and therefore needs to motivate the base. "We are at a point in the election where we normally get to in every election, where -- where individuals are talking to their voters and trying to get them fired up and trying to get them out," said Robert Gibbs.

The president's message - "reminding voters what's at stake, who has their best interests in mind, the steps that have been taken to get us out of the economic hole that we found ourselves in, and to continue to move forward on -- on those policy decisions," said Gibbs. "That's, I think, been the basis for what he's talked to voters about over the past couple of weeks, and I expect that that will continue tomorrow and throughout the trip out west."

Read more:


Oh, .....I thought multibillion underfunded union benefit programs were a problem. Never mind, all is well.

um, they obviously ARE a problem. what is your point? are you suggesting that my commentary says there is no problem with 'em? what's with the commie symbol? you changing sides on us? looking for an argument that isn't there? (OMG dude, if we start agreeing on things, your purpose in life as troll/agitator will cease to exist and *poof* you'll be gone, 'specially with spikey gone AWOL.)


Well-Known Member
The point is that the dems are reliant on these Union folks. THese folk are in trouble, both individuals and business' tied in with underfunded union programs. -- So do we bail them out or let them crash? -- This is just a small view of a larger picture that seems to be coming out.

See France.


hmmmm. maybe you're so stuck on everything being about the dems as dummie dum-dums that you're jumping off imaginary bridges. so the dems are reliant on these union folks yet they are supporting this change to FASB reporting requirements... or, wait, who is actually supporting the FASB changes? Is it the dems, and in by doing so they're going to put a bunch of union troglodytes out of work? now how does that make sense? so then it's the right wingers that want to see an end to timmy the trucker and his cushy union job? you getting my comment yet about this article not connecting? (but somehow it's still about dummie dum-dum dems, eh?)


Well-Known Member
a hundred billion here
a hundred billion there
after a while it all begins to add up


Well-Known Member
so the dems are reliant on these union folks yet they are supporting this change to FASB reporting requirements...
I'm not accusing the commie left of bee-eng overly brightness ores anythings. The term useful idiot comes to mind. :rofl3:

You kind'a miss the whole part where us teabaggers don't really like the RINO's either. in fact I wouldn't mind if OlySnow and McCain became leader of the new left once all the radical commies and socialist seek political asylum in Canada, Cooba and Venezuela.

But don't make the mistake of thinking I'm worried about the unions not surviving. I'm willing to suffer a bit more to let them collapse so we can be rid of them.

$165 billion Stimulus II

In order to survive, unions need a bailout and fast. This presents a political problem -- if unions go bankrupt, so do Democrats. Eleven of the top 20 largest political contributors are labor unions, and nearly all of that money is spent campaigning against Republicans.
By bailing out unions, Democrats are bailing out themselves.

Washington Examiner:
Here's a graphic that explains how large central governments work.



uhhh... right. don't answer questions, just wank the flesh-ripping. you are exemplary of your kind.

useful idiot? so you have a job, right?


Well-Known Member
I'm a little confused here Minx, we seem to be agreeing somewhat, yet.....spaghetti

DumDe- dum-dum Dems.

For the one question I can clearly see you asking, the answer would be: brake fluid, they're smoking brake fluid.


molṑn labé
Staff member
the accounting rules developed

This is where we went wrong. Return to the heyday of basic math. Put the money aside that is needed to fulfill obligations & stop with the accounting tricks.

What a concept.