Philip, I agree with you that a healthy distrust of government is necessary but I'm sensing you personally put too much trust in government.
I didn't trust the former administration and trust the present one even less. They are making a shambles of law. For example - the bankruptcy of both GM and Chrysler.
You state, "secured creditors could be made to accept equity instead of getting to grab their collateral, if the judge decided that keeping the company going could eventually provide as much total return to creditors."
Creditors grabbing their equity is not the issue here. The creditors in question are secured investors who invested in the bonds of both companies when risk was running very high. In return for their money (to keep the businesses running) they received an interest payment and a guarantee that they would be 1st in line in the event of a default.
You do understand that without such a trade-off, money would NOT been available to the companies?
Now, Obama has thrown Bankruptcy law out the window to award his constituents, the unions, a bigger share of the pie than the investors. Lest you think the investor class as the big greedy hedge funds and banks, most of the bonds are owned by pensions - fireman, teachers, policemen and the like.
It's clear the government is in the business of deciding winners and losers. It's not the market anymore.
GM will be 'Government Motors' now that the state will own 72% of the company. As an individual, I'd never invest in that stinking corpse of a company but as a taxpayer, well, I have no choice, do I?
Interestingly, what's not even discussed about this debacle is how the government will completely destroy GM. I mean, who the hell will now buy a car from GM now that team Obama calls the shots? The cars they produce will rival Yugos.
Sorry about ranting about this one example. I live in California, I'm 55 and I will never have any trust or respect for government anymore. The institutions of government have been taken over by the lunatic class.
I guess you can perceive I have more than a healthy distrust of our government. Maybe you can class it more as a healthy disgust.
At first I thought, hey someone frugal like me! Turns out his house & car had been bought for him by his Dad, he refused to either pay child support or keep a job, and he spent all his frugally-saved money on weed. Ugh!
I have to applaud this idea but also have to join the cynics. How long before word spreads to all the deadbeats and riff-raff. Mostly though, I am concerned about the raid by the health department. There must be some regulation. In Oregon, you cannot work in a restaurant without a food handlers card and I doubt that those who visit this establishment with no money to pay can be washing dishes without a health card of some sort. Personally, I really don't want some unwashed, homeless ( I resisted using the word "bum") washing the dishes I will be eating from.
With all that said, I sure hope it all work out! It's such an awesome dream.
I'm an adventurous wine drinker. I try new brands, and often times I grab the 2 Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's or the discontinued bin at Publix or Kroger. Sometimes I win. Sometimes it's less than amazing wine. I have a feeling this tip will be implemented in my near future.
I would mix to your taste preferences. For me, I usually go with somewhere between 1/4-1/2 soda (so 3/4-1/2 wine). You don't want it to be too watery -- and remember if you're adding ice it will get more watery.
This is awesome and I love to hear that there are others around the world. I would love to be involved in this kind of business and would certainly eat there (and pay what I feel the meal is worth, plus what I can afford on top). 2.5 years being open is pretty significant, especially with the negative mindset of many Americans (considering over a 1/3 of the comments are negative or cynical).
As a cashier- I would really rather the customer hand me the thing they don't want, rather than wedge it somewhere in the aisle. Once or twice, when something (usually a duck or goose) rang up more than someone was expecting, I have asked them if they'd put it back- because if we take it behind the register, it gets tossed. But for the most part- the cashier is standing right there, people- don't shove ice cream in behind the gum, just hand it to him/ her already. Also, I don't know about other cashiers (though the ones I work with seem to agree with me) but I'd rather have someone hand something over as unwanted before I've bagged it, than have to dig through bags for things to void off later.
No worries, I was just sharing my opinion. As I said, it's not a bad business model, because some people will give more. In fact, I like the idea of people working for their meal! It's the zero value exchange part that "bugs me". I personally feel that in order to truly help people you need to have an exchange of value (in money or time or anything) and not just hand outs.
My father in law used to make his own wine. He received a soda bottle for Christmas one year, and it wasn't long until someone started putting his wine in the bottle. Everyone loved it, but you had to be careful not to drink too much.
I am beyond surprised at all the negative comments. SAME has been open for 2.5 years, and they are still going strong. They have many more customers now that the economy is bad, but their model seems to be working just fine. I don't know them personally, but I can imagine that they live a happy and fulfilled life, making enough money. Can you imagine what it's like waking up every day knowing you will change lives and make people happy? Sure there are people who might exploit this, but there seems to be many more who would support and help, and keep coming back to help some more. You need to be optimistic about these things. I believe that people are intrinsically good, they only learn to be nasty and manipulative from their environment. If the environment changes, most "bad" people will change too.
i'm glad you mentioned that (locks of love) because my sister has 14" of natural brown hair that she's wanting to sell so that she can help cancer patience and return, earn cash to help pay for utilities, groceries, etc. as her current job isn't doing so great and the economy is so aweful, no one is hiring!!!!
I love wine spritzers! Good one, Elizabeth. Seltzer really spritzes up a fair number of things, but it really takes cheaper wine to the next level. In fact, guess what I'm drinking right now? Good to hear you had a blast in South America.
I think people who have specialised skills will tend to do really well over a long epriod of time as compared to the ones who are like swiss knife with ability to do many things but none with extreme authority. For example, a heart surgen will always do better than general physician bith socially and financially.
Although ideas like this are always great feel-good stories, real life doesn't work this way. The nature of a free-market society is taking advantage of every deal you can get, and exploiting the system to a ruthless level.
That being said, it is always interesting to see how these kinds of projects develop. They say a lot about the culture of the community.
Not necessarily a new idea... it's been done before and it has failed, or is failing where ever it has been implemented. Really, it seems like such a thoughtful thing, but a horrible business model ... the notion that you might just get a true peek at the heart of humanity -- due to the idea that people who can afford a meal, but are given a choice of paying what they want --seem to pay more. It's all great... right up until people set out on taking advantage move in --
The idealist in me ...wishes them success, as well as helping people along the way-- but the cynic says, uh no, they don't have a chance of making it.
I'm reading this thinking, "Great! Someone who chose to help people over making money! There should be more of this!" Then I look at the comments and am pretty shocked. How could someone be "bugged" and "rubbed the wrong way" by something like this? It's not YOUR money, it's not taxpayer money paying for this, it's the owners of the kitchen. If they made a bad business decision, that's all on them. I'm sure, as one of the other commenters pointed out, that some people end up paying more because they know it's helping their fellow man. Because of this, perhaps costs are covered, which since this is trying to be a non-profit, is all they are really looking for. Does it also rub these same people the wrong way when a church has a banquet for the homeless, or is that also just unnecessary, and shame on the church for not utilizing our capitalist system to its maximum? Yes, people may abuse the restaurant, but that must not happen often enough, and it looks like if they can't pay enough they have to work off the rest of it. Sounds fair to me...ugh, anyway, rant over.
In Illinois you have the option of working part-time while you collect unemployment. However, you can only earn up to 50% of your unemployment benefits. After that, your benefits are reduced dollar for dollar for whatever you earn above the 50%.
Maybe it's because I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, but this idea just kind of bugs me. Call me heartless, but define "need"? Of course, they'll do OK financially because some people will pay way more (as in most "donation" based businesses), but the "pay what you can afford" principle just rubs me the wrong way. Am I the only one?
Philip, I agree with you that a healthy distrust of government is necessary but I'm sensing you personally put too much trust in government.
I didn't trust the former administration and trust the present one even less. They are making a shambles of law. For example - the bankruptcy of both GM and Chrysler.
You state, "secured creditors could be made to accept equity instead of getting to grab their collateral, if the judge decided that keeping the company going could eventually provide as much total return to creditors."
Creditors grabbing their equity is not the issue here. The creditors in question are secured investors who invested in the bonds of both companies when risk was running very high. In return for their money (to keep the businesses running) they received an interest payment and a guarantee that they would be 1st in line in the event of a default.
You do understand that without such a trade-off, money would NOT been available to the companies?
Now, Obama has thrown Bankruptcy law out the window to award his constituents, the unions, a bigger share of the pie than the investors. Lest you think the investor class as the big greedy hedge funds and banks, most of the bonds are owned by pensions - fireman, teachers, policemen and the like.
It's clear the government is in the business of deciding winners and losers. It's not the market anymore.
GM will be 'Government Motors' now that the state will own 72% of the company. As an individual, I'd never invest in that stinking corpse of a company but as a taxpayer, well, I have no choice, do I?
Interestingly, what's not even discussed about this debacle is how the government will completely destroy GM. I mean, who the hell will now buy a car from GM now that team Obama calls the shots? The cars they produce will rival Yugos.
Sorry about ranting about this one example. I live in California, I'm 55 and I will never have any trust or respect for government anymore. The institutions of government have been taken over by the lunatic class.
I guess you can perceive I have more than a healthy distrust of our government. Maybe you can class it more as a healthy disgust.
At first I thought, hey someone frugal like me! Turns out his house & car had been bought for him by his Dad, he refused to either pay child support or keep a job, and he spent all his frugally-saved money on weed. Ugh!
Would you please post the recipe, if you have it, for the chocolate cherry variation? Thanks!
I have to applaud this idea but also have to join the cynics. How long before word spreads to all the deadbeats and riff-raff. Mostly though, I am concerned about the raid by the health department. There must be some regulation. In Oregon, you cannot work in a restaurant without a food handlers card and I doubt that those who visit this establishment with no money to pay can be washing dishes without a health card of some sort. Personally, I really don't want some unwashed, homeless ( I resisted using the word "bum") washing the dishes I will be eating from.
With all that said, I sure hope it all work out! It's such an awesome dream.
I'm an adventurous wine drinker. I try new brands, and often times I grab the 2 Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's or the discontinued bin at Publix or Kroger. Sometimes I win. Sometimes it's less than amazing wine. I have a feeling this tip will be implemented in my near future.
I would mix to your taste preferences. For me, I usually go with somewhere between 1/4-1/2 soda (so 3/4-1/2 wine). You don't want it to be too watery -- and remember if you're adding ice it will get more watery.
This is awesome and I love to hear that there are others around the world. I would love to be involved in this kind of business and would certainly eat there (and pay what I feel the meal is worth, plus what I can afford on top). 2.5 years being open is pretty significant, especially with the negative mindset of many Americans (considering over a 1/3 of the comments are negative or cynical).
I also feel so bad for boomer, so so sad...:(
OMG that is so cute it is one of my favorite animals EVER!!!
and very comprehensive.
I'm definitely going to make sure I get the best online account available.
I just got back from a shopping trip for the store. Super Fun!
Margaret Garcia-Couoh
As a cashier- I would really rather the customer hand me the thing they don't want, rather than wedge it somewhere in the aisle. Once or twice, when something (usually a duck or goose) rang up more than someone was expecting, I have asked them if they'd put it back- because if we take it behind the register, it gets tossed. But for the most part- the cashier is standing right there, people- don't shove ice cream in behind the gum, just hand it to him/ her already. Also, I don't know about other cashiers (though the ones I work with seem to agree with me) but I'd rather have someone hand something over as unwanted before I've bagged it, than have to dig through bags for things to void off later.
No worries, I was just sharing my opinion. As I said, it's not a bad business model, because some people will give more. In fact, I like the idea of people working for their meal! It's the zero value exchange part that "bugs me". I personally feel that in order to truly help people you need to have an exchange of value (in money or time or anything) and not just hand outs.
Cheers!
My father in law used to make his own wine. He received a soda bottle for Christmas one year, and it wasn't long until someone started putting his wine in the bottle. Everyone loved it, but you had to be careful not to drink too much.
Although I have not yet found a wine I don't like, I will use this trick to water it down a little and freshen up a drink on a hot day. Thanks!
Can you give some guidance on the right mix of wine and soda water?
I am beyond surprised at all the negative comments. SAME has been open for 2.5 years, and they are still going strong. They have many more customers now that the economy is bad, but their model seems to be working just fine. I don't know them personally, but I can imagine that they live a happy and fulfilled life, making enough money. Can you imagine what it's like waking up every day knowing you will change lives and make people happy? Sure there are people who might exploit this, but there seems to be many more who would support and help, and keep coming back to help some more. You need to be optimistic about these things. I believe that people are intrinsically good, they only learn to be nasty and manipulative from their environment. If the environment changes, most "bad" people will change too.
i'm glad you mentioned that (locks of love) because my sister has 14" of natural brown hair that she's wanting to sell so that she can help cancer patience and return, earn cash to help pay for utilities, groceries, etc. as her current job isn't doing so great and the economy is so aweful, no one is hiring!!!!
I love wine spritzers! Good one, Elizabeth. Seltzer really spritzes up a fair number of things, but it really takes cheaper wine to the next level. In fact, guess what I'm drinking right now? Good to hear you had a blast in South America.
I think people who have specialised skills will tend to do really well over a long epriod of time as compared to the ones who are like swiss knife with ability to do many things but none with extreme authority. For example, a heart surgen will always do better than general physician bith socially and financially.
Powered by Tofu: I'm somewhat with you.
Although ideas like this are always great feel-good stories, real life doesn't work this way. The nature of a free-market society is taking advantage of every deal you can get, and exploiting the system to a ruthless level.
That being said, it is always interesting to see how these kinds of projects develop. They say a lot about the culture of the community.
Not necessarily a new idea... it's been done before and it has failed, or is failing where ever it has been implemented. Really, it seems like such a thoughtful thing, but a horrible business model ... the notion that you might just get a true peek at the heart of humanity -- due to the idea that people who can afford a meal, but are given a choice of paying what they want --seem to pay more. It's all great... right up until people set out on taking advantage move in --
The idealist in me ...wishes them success, as well as helping people along the way-- but the cynic says, uh no, they don't have a chance of making it.
I'm reading this thinking, "Great! Someone who chose to help people over making money! There should be more of this!" Then I look at the comments and am pretty shocked. How could someone be "bugged" and "rubbed the wrong way" by something like this? It's not YOUR money, it's not taxpayer money paying for this, it's the owners of the kitchen. If they made a bad business decision, that's all on them. I'm sure, as one of the other commenters pointed out, that some people end up paying more because they know it's helping their fellow man. Because of this, perhaps costs are covered, which since this is trying to be a non-profit, is all they are really looking for. Does it also rub these same people the wrong way when a church has a banquet for the homeless, or is that also just unnecessary, and shame on the church for not utilizing our capitalist system to its maximum? Yes, people may abuse the restaurant, but that must not happen often enough, and it looks like if they can't pay enough they have to work off the rest of it. Sounds fair to me...ugh, anyway, rant over.
In Illinois you have the option of working part-time while you collect unemployment. However, you can only earn up to 50% of your unemployment benefits. After that, your benefits are reduced dollar for dollar for whatever you earn above the 50%.
Maybe it's because I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, but this idea just kind of bugs me. Call me heartless, but define "need"? Of course, they'll do OK financially because some people will pay way more (as in most "donation" based businesses), but the "pay what you can afford" principle just rubs me the wrong way. Am I the only one?