- Thread starter
- #41
Yes....
But one is the right way, and the other is the wrong way. We the taxpayers should not be stuck holding the bag on this... the unions should pay for what they did, and GM should pay for getting in bed with them. Any grade school student could see it is all unsusatinable[sic] in the long run.
The union goons are in for the short term.
Challenge: Union goons is a term for Union men who beat up scabs. Name the Union goons you are referring to, please...and how the term applies to the named men.
GM got in bed with the Unions? Where is a credible link for this point?
Are taxpayers holding the bag for things? What if GM folded? What if the suppliers had went out of business? These were the stories back then, if we did nothing. Please, show me where people argued with credibility that allowing GM and others to fail would be good for the tax payers.
Please explain what is the 'right' way and what qualifies as the 'wrong' way and why
First… the “right way” is on their own or with private sector money… just like Staples or any other private business does.
That way Obama cant claim to have “done it for you”
History of U.S. Gov’t Bailouts
How the US airlines got their $15 billion bailout
By Kate Randall
18 October 2001
What Was The Chrysler Bailout?
Political History
GM doing it on their own would of course be very painful… just like cancer surgery, and there is no guarantee of success either. That’s the way capitalism works here in America, or at least it used to.
Myth
You appear to be a bit confused here:It would have been better for the tax payers in the long run because it would send a clear message… clean up your act or fail. Plain and simple…
It would have been a lesson to Corporate America, not the taxpayers
As for the “goons”.. I don’t have names and numbers… but I grew up in a union home and I know how it works.
My dad’s union hall was ran by a family friend, and we always suspected funny business going on with him and it was proven last year when he was indicted for embezeling nearly 1 million dollars from the local union… along with his wife the secretary.
Goons come in all shapes and sizes… You want links for my accusation that GM was in bed with unions… its public knowledge that the unions were asking for WAY TOO MUCH and GM gave it.
Look it up… google is your friend (sometimes).
Define 'way too much' and then define what is not 'way too much' and then you will start a conversation. As it stands we are what 2/3 pages into this thread and very little of substance has been offered or debated.
Why is that? Do people truly not know how to converse? Are we all stuck with what passes for conversation but is in reality baseless accusations and talking point score cards?
Last edited: