Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco
You know what...so many of them come on here and just "say stuff" much of whichis just flat out false but it appears on one of "the select" websites or as I know they get these tweets during the day with the party line.
THEN.....all of them come on after and rave about it and they have no idea whatsoever of what they are talking about so I am just not going to let them just say stuff.
BUT, the frustrating thing is I do not think they care one iota. It is as if they were getting paid to insure that the company line is on here and never mind discussion on it or even if it is true...just say it !
These people will vote.....without a clue.
A poster a few days ago on a thread where the auto bailout came up DID NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE to the bail out. Did not even know that they could have gone bankrupt and been reorganized. The poster was under the impression if Obama had not bailed them out..they would all be out of work period !
|
Exactly right. I posted during a past discussion on these auto company bailouts that it was to save the unions (reliable Democrat voters) and not so much the companies itself.
The companies would either have survived the reorganization or not. If they were able to work out a deal with the unions and cut back on their costs and reorganize their debt, they could survive, albeit maybe in a smaller footprint.
There is much success in the auto industry in this country, but it's mainly the non-union plants where this was so. These companies would have swiftly filled the vacuum created if GM or Chrysler had actually crashed and burned.
The decline of unionized labor is of great concern to Democrats in pure political concern.
My private feelings and lifetime support of private sector unions have nothing to do with the truth of my above statements.