An ice cream purveyor from Staten Island has landed himself in a sticky Catch-22 after allegedly trying to "palm off" less-than-quality ice cream as Häagen-Dazs in his Bay Ridge shop. The ice cream giant is suing Steven Itkin for trademark infringement and breach of contract, and is seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages and to shut down Itkin's Häagen-Dazs franchise. However, Itkin suggests maybe Häagen-Dazs should lay off, as their expensive ice cream made it "impossible to make money with the store."
Häagen-Dazs first caught wind of Itkin's scam when he tried to terminate his contract with the company. The contract was terminated, but Itkin was prohibited for two years from working in an ice-cream business within two miles of his store or any other Häagen-Dazs shop. Instead, he continued to operate his store, allegedly selling both Haagen-Dazs and non-Häagen-Dazs products, and used company signs to advertise a competitor's product. Itkin claims he had no choice, as times were tough and he couldn't pay the remaining $5,000 Häagen-Dazs needed. "Everybody loved the store but I was making no money," he said. "I had bills to pay."
Itkin is now giving away all the store equipment and hopes that the company will stop the suit. A judge issued a temporary restraining order on him, forbidding him to work in the ice-cream business within the boundaries in the franchise agreement. Let this be a lesson: Don't mess with the Dazs.
It's a drag, no, it's shameful and pathetic that the best hope for keeping Social Security intact is a deadlock on the panel that's looking into butchering the most successful program that emerged from the New Deal. But, as David Dayen and Joan McCarter pointed out last week, the prospect of stalemate on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is worth a cheer. That entity didn't get nicknamed the "catfood commission" for no good reason.
There is always the chance that President Obama would veto any cuts in Social Security the Congress adopted on the commission's recommendations in its forthcoming December report. But it's far better to keep those recommendations out of the hands of Congress in the first place since 99 percent of Republicans and an enabling one or two dozen Blue Dogs would likely approve cuts. There's an alliance of progressives led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Raul Grijalva who have lined up 116 members of the Senate and House in opposition to any cuts. But welcome as that push-back is, well, you can do the math. If the commission's recommendations do make it to Congress, don't be surprised if Social Security cuts are labeled patriotic retirement enhancements.
The idiocy of taking the ax to Social Security got a good going over again Tuesday by Paul N. Van de Water. He's currently a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and he has 25 years of top-level experience at the Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office. He wrote:
Here are the facts. Social Security is a well-run, fiscally responsible program. People earn retirement, survivors, and disability benefits by making payroll tax contributions during their working years. Those taxes and other revenues are deposited in the Social Security trust funds, and all benefits and administrative expenses are paid out of the trust funds. The amount that Social Security can spend is limited by its payroll tax income plus the balance in the trust funds.
The Social Security trustees — the official body charged with evaluating the program’s long-term finances — project that Social Security can pay 100 percent of promised benefits through 2037 and about three-quarters of scheduled benefits after that, even if Congress makes no changes in the program. Relatively modest changes would put the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been “raided” or disparage the trust funds as “funny money” or mere “IOUs.” Some even label Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense. ...
Moreover, Social Security is the “polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,” says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi’s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff.
"All these claims are nonsense." No matter how many times it gets said, the privatizers, whackers and hackers of Social Security, the guys who want to transform a secure program that has reduced poverty of the elderly into a bilk-the-pensioners scam will keep repeating the lies that the program is going broke and they know how to fix it. Just chop a little here and there and let their pals on Wall Street help out with some ... uh... adjustments. The better Democrats on the campaign trail should use this opportunity to remind voters what's at stake.
robert shumake
The Hockey <b>News</b>: Fantasy Pool Look Column: Fantasy Pool Look: Late <b>...</b>
Looking to pick up a producer in the late-rounds of your draft? The Dobber has a few suggestions.
Gates Foundation Backs ABC <b>News</b> Project - NYTimes.com
The Gates Foundation gives a $1.5 million grant to ABC News to support the network's reporting on various global health crises.
Fox <b>News</b> Duped By Report That Los Angeles Will Spend $1 Billion On <b>...</b>
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW** Fox News reported that Los Angeles is going to spend $1 billion on jetpacks that can fly a person up to 63 miles per hour and soar to heights of 8000 feet.
robert shumake
The Hockey <b>News</b>: Fantasy Pool Look Column: Fantasy Pool Look: Late <b>...</b>
Looking to pick up a producer in the late-rounds of your draft? The Dobber has a few suggestions.
Gates Foundation Backs ABC <b>News</b> Project - NYTimes.com
The Gates Foundation gives a $1.5 million grant to ABC News to support the network's reporting on various global health crises.
Fox <b>News</b> Duped By Report That Los Angeles Will Spend $1 Billion On <b>...</b>
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW** Fox News reported that Los Angeles is going to spend $1 billion on jetpacks that can fly a person up to 63 miles per hour and soar to heights of 8000 feet.
robert shumake
An ice cream purveyor from Staten Island has landed himself in a sticky Catch-22 after allegedly trying to "palm off" less-than-quality ice cream as Häagen-Dazs in his Bay Ridge shop. The ice cream giant is suing Steven Itkin for trademark infringement and breach of contract, and is seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages and to shut down Itkin's Häagen-Dazs franchise. However, Itkin suggests maybe Häagen-Dazs should lay off, as their expensive ice cream made it "impossible to make money with the store."
Häagen-Dazs first caught wind of Itkin's scam when he tried to terminate his contract with the company. The contract was terminated, but Itkin was prohibited for two years from working in an ice-cream business within two miles of his store or any other Häagen-Dazs shop. Instead, he continued to operate his store, allegedly selling both Haagen-Dazs and non-Häagen-Dazs products, and used company signs to advertise a competitor's product. Itkin claims he had no choice, as times were tough and he couldn't pay the remaining $5,000 Häagen-Dazs needed. "Everybody loved the store but I was making no money," he said. "I had bills to pay."
Itkin is now giving away all the store equipment and hopes that the company will stop the suit. A judge issued a temporary restraining order on him, forbidding him to work in the ice-cream business within the boundaries in the franchise agreement. Let this be a lesson: Don't mess with the Dazs.
It's a drag, no, it's shameful and pathetic that the best hope for keeping Social Security intact is a deadlock on the panel that's looking into butchering the most successful program that emerged from the New Deal. But, as David Dayen and Joan McCarter pointed out last week, the prospect of stalemate on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is worth a cheer. That entity didn't get nicknamed the "catfood commission" for no good reason.
There is always the chance that President Obama would veto any cuts in Social Security the Congress adopted on the commission's recommendations in its forthcoming December report. But it's far better to keep those recommendations out of the hands of Congress in the first place since 99 percent of Republicans and an enabling one or two dozen Blue Dogs would likely approve cuts. There's an alliance of progressives led by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Raul Grijalva who have lined up 116 members of the Senate and House in opposition to any cuts. But welcome as that push-back is, well, you can do the math. If the commission's recommendations do make it to Congress, don't be surprised if Social Security cuts are labeled patriotic retirement enhancements.
The idiocy of taking the ax to Social Security got a good going over again Tuesday by Paul N. Van de Water. He's currently a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and he has 25 years of top-level experience at the Social Security Administration and Congressional Budget Office. He wrote:
Here are the facts. Social Security is a well-run, fiscally responsible program. People earn retirement, survivors, and disability benefits by making payroll tax contributions during their working years. Those taxes and other revenues are deposited in the Social Security trust funds, and all benefits and administrative expenses are paid out of the trust funds. The amount that Social Security can spend is limited by its payroll tax income plus the balance in the trust funds.
The Social Security trustees — the official body charged with evaluating the program’s long-term finances — project that Social Security can pay 100 percent of promised benefits through 2037 and about three-quarters of scheduled benefits after that, even if Congress makes no changes in the program. Relatively modest changes would put the program on a sound financial footing for 75 years and beyond.
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been “raided” or disparage the trust funds as “funny money” or mere “IOUs.” Some even label Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense. ...
Moreover, Social Security is the “polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,” says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi’s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff.
"All these claims are nonsense." No matter how many times it gets said, the privatizers, whackers and hackers of Social Security, the guys who want to transform a secure program that has reduced poverty of the elderly into a bilk-the-pensioners scam will keep repeating the lies that the program is going broke and they know how to fix it. Just chop a little here and there and let their pals on Wall Street help out with some ... uh... adjustments. The better Democrats on the campaign trail should use this opportunity to remind voters what's at stake.
robert shumake
The Hockey <b>News</b>: Fantasy Pool Look Column: Fantasy Pool Look: Late <b>...</b>
Looking to pick up a producer in the late-rounds of your draft? The Dobber has a few suggestions.
Gates Foundation Backs ABC <b>News</b> Project - NYTimes.com
The Gates Foundation gives a $1.5 million grant to ABC News to support the network's reporting on various global health crises.
Fox <b>News</b> Duped By Report That Los Angeles Will Spend $1 Billion On <b>...</b>
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW** Fox News reported that Los Angeles is going to spend $1 billion on jetpacks that can fly a person up to 63 miles per hour and soar to heights of 8000 feet.
No comments:
Post a Comment